Qihui Huang v. Wheeler, 215 F. Supp. 3d 100

Background

Qihui Huang, a long‑time GS‑15 electronics engineer at the FCC, alleges supervisors Martin Doczkat and Walter Johnson subjected her to discriminatory criticism, hostile conduct, and adverse personnel actions beginning in 2014; she claims these caused severe hypertension and forced her early retirement in Jan. 2016.
Key disputed events: extensive critical comments on a 2014 wireless‑microphone report; a failing midterm performance review (Nov. 2014); a delayed/conditioned sick‑leave approval (Feb. 2015); denial of an automatic within‑grade step increase (Feb. 2015); placement on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP); and a denied request for a management‑chain transfer as an accommodation.
Procedurally, Huang filed EEO counseling and two formal EEO complaints (relating to the report comments and the midterm review) but did not file administrative complaints for some discrete actions (notably the step increase); she sued pro se in federal court naming the FCC and the two supervisors; the court treated the Chairman of the FCC as the proper defendant for agency claims.
The FCC moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). The court applied the pro se pleading standard but required plausible factual support and, for jurisdictional exhaustion questions, closer scrutiny.
The court dismissed all claims against the individual supervisors (Doczkat and Johnson) and dismissed most claims against the FCC, but allowed Huang’s claim about denial of the within‑grade step increase to proceed (finding a plausible equitable‑tolling/estoppel theory re: administrative exhaustion at the pleadings stage).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether criminal claims and suit against individual supervisors are permissible	Huang sought to assert criminal violations and sued Doczkat and Johnson individually	FCC: private citizens lack standing to bring criminal prosecutions; federal employees must sue the agency head, not individual supervisors	Dismissed: criminal claims and claims against individuals dismissed; proper defendant is FCC Chairman
Whether critical comments on the 2014 report constitute actionable discrimination or hostile work environment	Huang: comments implied she was unqualified and reflected discriminatory animus; created hostile environment	FCC: comments were non‑tangible criticism and not severe or pervasive enough to be adverse or to alter employment terms	Dismissed: comments alone not an adverse action or sufficiently severe/pervasive for hostile‑work‑environment claim
Whether the failing midterm evaluation and the sick‑leave paperwork demand were actionable adverse actions or retaliation	Huang: these actions harmed her and were retaliatory/discriminatory	FCC: preliminary reviews and conditional but ultimately granted sick leave are not tangible adverse actions	Dismissed: midterm evaluation and sick‑leave conditioning are not materially adverse absent effect on pay/grade/benefits
Whether denial of the within‑grade step increase is actionable and whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars suit	Huang: step denial reduced pay; she claims OWD conduct impeded exhaustion and seeks equitable relief from exhaustion requirement	FCC: plaintiff did not exhaust Title VII/ADEA administrative remedies and count should be dismissed	Survived dismissal: denial of step increase is a cognizable adverse action; court found Huang plausibly alleged facts (misleading/obstructive OWD conduct) to warrant equitable tolling/estoppel inquiry at later stage

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and allegations in opposition may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions need not be accepted as true)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (elements of federal employment discrimination claims and adverse‑action standard)
Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (formal criticism is not an adverse action absent effect on grade or salary)
Penn. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (constructive discharge and hostile‑work‑environment doctrines)
Morgan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts require separate administrative exhaustion)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (EEOC filing requirements subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling)