Minter v. District of Columbia
62 F. Supp. 3d 149
D.D.C.2014Background
- Penelope Minter, a long‑time District of Columbia employee, alleges sarcoidosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia that limit her ability to sit, stand, walk, and work; she sought a reduced schedule or permission to telework as reasonable accommodations.
- Minter accepted a full‑time Management Supervisory Service Coordinator position at OCME on May 1, 2006; prior positions had permitted reduced schedules.
- From autumn 2006 OCME’s ADA coordinator (Williams) and supervisor (James) discussed accommodations; Williams told Minter that OCME had no part‑time positions and requested medical documentation; Minter filed an EEOC Intake Questionnaire on December 1, 2006.
- Minter suffered a workplace slip on September 25, 2006, obtained worker’s compensation, and took extended leave beginning late 2006–early 2007; OCME repeatedly requested medical certification for the absences.
- On June 20, 2007 Minter faxed a Disability Certificate from Dr. Batipps declaring her totally disabled for an indefinite period; OCME terminated her effective August 8, 2007 for failing to provide required medical documentation and for prolonged absence.
- Minter sued (filed March 22, 2010) under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the DCHRA alleging failure to accommodate and retaliatory discharge; the Court granted summary judgment for the District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claim | Minter contends her December 1, 2006 EEOC Intake Questionnaire constitutes a timely charge under Holowecki, so the 300‑day period was satisfied | District argues the Intake Questionnaire is not a charge; the operative denial was Dec. 5, 2006 and Minter’s formal charge was signed Oct. 19, 2007 (too late) | Intake Questionnaire did not manifest a clear request for agency action; ADA claim untimely, summary judgment for District |
| Timeliness of Rehabilitation Act claim | Minter argues administrative exhaustion (EEOC right‑to‑sue dated Dec. 22, 2009) makes her § 794 claim timely | District contends Rehabilitation Act claims are governed by a three‑year limitations period and are not tolled by optional administrative exhaustion | Court adopts view that ADA exhaustion does not apply to Rehab Act here; three‑year limitations bar Minter’s Rehabilitation Act claim |
| Whether Minter was a "qualified individual" under ADA/ Rehabilitation Act | Minter points to past reduced‑schedule work and expert statements that telework/flexible schedule can be reasonable | District points to Dr. Batipps’ June 2007 certificate declaring Minter totally disabled indefinitely, which precludes performing essential job functions even with accommodation | No reasonable jury could find Minter was a qualified individual; summary judgment for District |
| Retaliation / pretext for termination | Minter argues timing (termination after receipt of medical documentation) suggests termination was motivated by her accommodation request/EEOC activity | District asserts legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: job abandonment / failure to provide timely medical certification; Dr. Batipps’ certificate showed indefinite inability to work | Court finds Minter failed to show pretext; District’s reason stands (indefinite inability to perform/abandonment); summary judgment for District |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show more than metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (timeliness of administrative charge under employment discrimination statutes)
- Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., 552 U.S. 389 (when an EEOC intake questionnaire can constitute a charge)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (employee must explain apparent inconsistency between disability benefit statements and ADA claim)
- Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (framework for proving pretext in employment discrimination cases)
- Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (government need not retain employees unable to appear for work)
- Moore v. Hartman, 571 F.3d 62 (summary judgment not appropriate where material facts are susceptible to divergent inferences)