146 F. Supp. 3d 99
D.D.C.2015Background
- Lenkiewicz sues HUD under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to reasonably accommodate disabilities.
- She made five 2009 accommodation requests: printer, parking, relocation to portals building, and two telework requests (one 2009, one 2010).
- The court previously held it lacked jurisdiction over 2009 printer/parking/relocation due to exhaustion and Spinelli v. Goss; telework 2009 was deemed unexhausted for lack of administrative notice.
- Doak v. Johnson (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2015) clarified that exhaustion time limits are not jurisdictional bars and may be waived; final disposition in agency proceedings matters for exhaustion.
- HUD did not raise timeliness as a defense during proceedings, so timeliness was waived for printer/parking/relocation; 2009 telework lacked administrative notice, so it remains non-exhausted.
- The administrative record shows a June 9, 2011 EEO complaint and a November 5, 2012 final HUD order denying the claims; HUD’s consideration of the Rehabilitation Act claim occurred within that final disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Doak v. Johnson render the court with jurisdiction over 2009 accommodation claims? | Lenkiewicz argues Doak allows jurisdiction over all 2009 requests. | HUD argued Doak limited this court’s jurisdiction to only wholesale exhaustion issues. | Yes; court has jurisdiction over all 2009 accommodation claims. |
| Is Lenkiewicz's 2009 telework claim exhausted given notice requirements? | Lenkiewicz contends telework notice was reasonably related to other claims. | HUD contends no explicit notice of 2009 telework in administrative complaint. | Telework 2009 not exhausted; dismissed for lack of notice. |
| Have timeliness defenses been waived by HUD? | Plaintiff argues timeliness should be treated as an exhaustion defense. | HUD did not raise timeliness during admin proceedings. | Timeliness defense waived for printer, parking, relocation; still not waived as to telework due to lack of notice. |
| Was there proper notice for relocation and other accommodations under exhaustion rules? | Claims were noticeable through complaint and counseling records. | HUD contends some claims were not adequately noticed. | Relocation notice satisfied; telework notice not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spinelli v. Goss, 446 F.3d 159 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (exhaustion requirement discussed; failure to file an administrative complaint can bar jurisdiction)
- Doak v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (exhaustion time limits are not jurisdictional; waiver when not raised during admin proceedings)
- Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., 552 U.S. 389 (2008) (liberal interpretation of administrative filings to protect employee rights)