60 F. Supp. 3d 156
D.D.C.2014Background
- Scott, African-American Licensed Practical Nurse, worked at George Washington University Hospital 2007–2010.
- She was terminated after an April 2010 altercation with her supervisor, Beth Reinhart (white).
- She filed three EEOC charges between January 2011 and January 2013 alleging discrimination, with later amendments adding hostile environment and disability claims.
- Initial EEOC charges did not mark disability or retaliation and contained no disability allegations in the narrative.
- The EEOC dismissed all three charges as unable to conclude violations; Scott filed this federal suit in April 2013 raising five counts.
- Court dismisses several counts but allows race-based hostile environment claim to proceed at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of disability/retaliation claims before EEOC | Intake materials and later amendments put EEOC on notice. | No timely disability/retaliation claims in 2011 charges; related back improper. | Disability/retaliation claims not exhausted; related back not permitted; counts I and IV dismissed. |
| Adequacy of ADA disability claim pleading | Dust-related breathing issues constitute a disability. | No substantial limitation; impairment shared by public; not a disability. | Plaintiff failed to plead a disability under the ADA; claim dismissed (Count I). |
| Hostile work environment viability for race vs. disability claims | Allegations show supervisor’s abusive conduct toward non-white employees. | Allegations do not establish disability-based hostile environment; race-based plausibility exists. | Race-based hostile environment claim survives dismissal; disability-based claim fails for lack of disability. |
| DC wrongful discharge claim viability | Pendant count seeks DC wrongful discharge under public policy/statutes. | Federal statutes provide remedies; pendant DC claim unnecessary. | DC wrongful discharge claim dismissed. |
| Relation back of amended claims under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 | 2013 disability/retaliation claims relate back to 2011 charges. | Disability is a new theory; not related back. | Amendment did not relate back; timely exhaustion not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (claims must relate to the original EEOC charge to proceed in court)
- Wilson v. Communications Workers of Am., 767 F. Supp. 304 (D.D.C. 1991) (amendments adding new theories do not relate back without relation to original charge)
- Desmond v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (disability determinations require substantial limitation compared to general public)
- Haynes v. Williams, 392 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (impairment must substantially limit a major life activity and cannot be mitigated by location change)
- Ndondji v. InterPark Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.D.C. 2011) (retaliation claims prior to EEOC filing must be exhausted separately)