Tyson v. Brennan
277 F. Supp. 3d 28
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Tyson, a former USPS employee on limited duty after back surgery, recorded a supervisor covertly after alleged demands for money and feeling threatened.
- Tyson submitted the recording to managers; USPS issued a Notice of 7-Day Suspension for recording without permission on June 3, 2015.
- Tyson filed an EEO administrative complaint checking Disability and ambiguously addressing Retaliation; the agency noted he withdrew any retaliation claim and found no discrimination.
- Tyson filed this pro se suit under the Rehabilitation Act seeking monetary and punitive damages; USPS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (and argued lack of exhaustion for retaliation).
- The Suspension Notice was never actually served and, per the administrative record, was later rescinded and removed in settlement.
- Tyson conceded in district-court briefing that he did not exhaust administrative remedies for a retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tyson stated a Rehabilitation Act disability-discrimination claim | Tyson contends issuance of the suspension notice was discrimination because of his disability | USPS argues no cognizable adverse action occurred (notice rescinded; no suspension served or pay lost) | Dismissed — no actionable adverse employment action pleaded |
| Whether Tyson stated a Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim | Tyson alleges suspension was retaliatory for protected activity (recording/complaint) | USPS argues Tyson did not engage in protected activity and failed to exhaust admin remedies | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — plaintiff conceded non-exhaustion |
| Whether the court should treat defendant's motion as summary judgment | Tyson received limited notice; USPS cited settlement documents to show rescission | USPS asked conversion to summary judgment citing rescission evidence | Court declined to convert motion; resolved on pleadings and administrative record |
| Whether pro se status alters pleading requirements | Tyson urged liberal construction of pro se filings | USPS maintained pleading and exhaustion standards apply | Court applied liberal construction but required factual allegations to state plausible claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must state plausible claims; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (2011) (plausibility standard and reasonable inferences govern complaint review)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (unserved or rescinded suspensions are not adverse actions)
- Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (definition of adverse employment action for discrimination claims)
- Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (objective, tangible harm required; purely subjective injuries not actionable)
- Spinelli v. Goss, 446 F.3d 159 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (administrative exhaustion is prerequisite to suit under Rehabilitation Act)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are to be liberally construed)