Mattson v. Napolitano, 1:11-cv-02214

Ms. Mattson, a pro se plaintiff, filed a Title VII complaint in the District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 11-cv-02214-MSK-CBS).
She amended the complaint to address alleged discrimination based on gender, age, and disability, and retaliation, with jurisdiction asserted under the ADA and retaliation theories.
This is Ms. Mattson’s third civil action concerning TSA employment discrimination; prior cases were dismissed for failure to exhaust or state a claim.
Her TSA employment ended on July 6, 2010 (light duty status expired) and was formally terminated on February 18, 2011, after which she performed no TSA work.
ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act claims for TSA screener positions; federal employees cannot pursue ADA claims here; exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to Title VII/ADEA suits; Ms. Mattson did not timely exhaust regarding the post-2010 termination claims.
The court recommends dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disability discrimination jurisdiction under ADA/Rehabilitation Act	Mattson seeks disability-based discrimination relief under ADA.	ATSA exemption bars Rehabilitation Act claims; ADA not available to federal employees.	Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over disability discrimination claims.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies for the 2010–2011 termination	Ms. Mattson exhausted via EEO processes; timely filing.	Timely exhaustion not shown; no timely EEO contact for termination claims.	Exhaustion not shown; lacks jurisdiction over termination-based claims.
Gender and age discrimination plausibility	Alleges discriminatory treatment based on gender/age.	AC concedes no plausible, non-conclusory facts; no discrimination shown.	No plausible gender/age discrimination claims stated.
Retaliation and causal connection	EEO activity linked to adverse actions; protected activity alleged.	No facts showing causal link between EEO activity and July 2010 or Feb 2011 actions.	Retaliation claim not plausibly stated.
Hostile work environment claim	There was a hostile environment related to disability and gender.	Not properly pled in AC; insufficient factual basis.	Hostile environment claim not stated and barred.

Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework and requires plausible facts)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (threadbare pleadings insufficient; plausibility required)
Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion prerequisites and claims in Title VII context)
Sizova v. Nat'l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2002) (timing vs. complete failure to initiate EEO contact is jurisdictional)
McDonald-Cuba v. Santa Fe Protective Services, Inc., 644 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion doctrine and jurisdictional nuances)
Mannie v. Potter, 394 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 2005) (Rehabilitation Act applicability to federal employees under ATSA)