770 F. Supp. 2d 241
D.D.C.2011Background
- Denise Hamilton, a visually impaired teacher, worked for DC Public Schools since ~2003.
- She was terminated on August 1, 2008 for allegedly lacking a proper teaching credential.
- Hamilton had previously passed the licensing exam and earned the credential before termination.
- She alleged disability discrimination and that the termination was improper.
- She claimed EEOC involvement and a due process right to challenge the decision and incentive issues.
- The complaint was removed to federal court; the court granted the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA exhaustion requirement for termination claim | Hamilton exhausted remedies via EEOC charge. | EEOC charge did not address termination; not exhausted. | ADA claim dismissed for lack of administrative exhaustion. |
| Whether ADA termination claim is cognizable without exhaustion | Termination discrimination under ADA valid claim. | Exhaustion required; termination not in charge. | No exhaustion, claim fails. |
| Constitutional due process claim viability | Due process violated by nonpayment of incentive and no hearing. | No policy or custom showing municipal liability. | Due process claim fails for lack of policy/custom. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Fed. Express Corp., 130 F.3d 1095 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (exhaustion prerequisite for ADA claims)
- Pailes v. U.S. Peace Corps, F.Supp.2d (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissal when no exhaust of administrative remedies)
- Baker v. Dist. of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (municipal liability requires an affirmative link)
- Stoddard v. Dist. of Columbia, 764 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D.D.C. 2011) (no policy or custom alleged; due process claim fails)
- Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d 308 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (two-prong §1983 prima facie case; color of law)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Twombly v. Bells Labs, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (heightened pleading standard)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (S. Ct. 2002) (no requirement to plead prima facie case at pleadings)
- Erby v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2006) (treat complaint as true for Rule 12(b)(6))