258 F. Supp. 3d 94
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Derrick W. Macon, pro se, sued the U.S. Capitol Police Board under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, race discrimination, and retaliation.
- Macon claimed he was not returned to full duty after medical clearance and alleged harassment and retaliation tied to prior complaints.
- Macon asserted he completed the CAA's mandatory counseling and mediation (OOC Case No. 11-CP-50) and received an End of Mediation notice in August 2011.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (untimely filing and failure to exhaust) and, alternately, for failure to state a claim.
- The court found Macon established timeliness and exhaustion by submitting Office of Compliance records (counseling request, mediation request, and certificate showing end-of-mediation on Aug. 23, 2011).
- The court dismissed Counts I (disability discrimination) and II (hostile work environment) but allowed Counts III (race discrimination) and IV (retaliation) to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction: timely filing after end-of-mediation notice | Macon said he got End-of-Mediation notice Aug. 23, 2011 and filed within 90 days | Complaint filed three days after Nov. 18 deadline if notice was Aug. 20; defendant contested date and burden | Court accepted Office of Compliance certification showing Aug. 23 receipt; complaint timely — jurisdiction exists |
| Administrative exhaustion under CAA | Macon submitted counseling/mediation request documents tied to Case No. 11-CP-50 | Defendant argued submitted documents did not show the Amended Complaint claims were presented in OOC process | Court found letters and OOC certification sufficiently showed Macon presented and exhausted the same claims — exhaustion satisfied |
| Disability discrimination (Count I) | Macon: denial of reasonable accommodation/return to work after medical clearance | Defendant: complaint lacks essential factual elements | Court: Macon did not allege he is a person with a disability; Count I dismissed |
| Hostile work environment (Count II) | Macon: daily mistreatment, fear of furlough, administrative leave, refusal to restore to duty | Defendant: allegations not severe/pervasive or interfering with work performance | Court: only specific allegation was refusal to restore to duty — insufficient to plead severe or pervasive conduct; Count II dismissed |
| Race discrimination (Count III) | Macon: racial discrimination alleged in counseling and that Herrera delayed legal assistance to return him to duty | Defendant: insufficient facts showing adverse action | Court: refusal to return him to full duty plausibly alleged an adverse employment action; Count III allowed to proceed |
| Retaliation (Count IV) | Macon: not returned to regular duties in retaliation for protected complaints | Defendant: no material disadvantage shown and no causal link to earlier complaints | Court: complaint sufficiently alleges protected activity and materially adverse action (failure to return to duty); Count IV allowed to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (CAA counseling/mediation are jurisdictional and standards for what "completed" means)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (facts must raise claim above speculative level)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (elements of Rehabilitation Act discrimination and hostile work environment analysis)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (definition of hostile work environment)
- Rochon v. Gonzalez, 438 F.3d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (retaliation pleading standard: simple allegation that employer retaliated for protected activity can suffice)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (definition of adverse employment action)