Brown v. Hayden
| Decision Date | 02 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-2561 (BAH) |
| Parties | CLARK H. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CARLA HAYDEN, in her capacity as Librarian of Congress, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Clark Brown brings this employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, the Library of Congress ("LOC"), claiming that LOC failed to provide reasonable accommodations for a disability, discrimination on the basis of disability, retaliation for engaging in protected activity, a hostile work environment, an unlawful medical examination, and constructive discharge, all in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and the Congressional Accountability Act ("CAA"), 2 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq. Compl. ¶¶ 200-266, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also claims age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., id. ¶¶ 267-72; age- and disability-based discrimination, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and LOC's own internal regulations, id. ¶¶ 273-84; and harassment and retaliation, in violation of LOC's internal regulations, id. ¶¶ 279-84. These claims arise from plaintiff's alleged treatment by his direct supervisor and then her replacement after he suffered a stroke resulting in his disability and undertook protected activity in connection with that disability. See id. ¶¶ 15-199. Following ten months of discovery, see Scheduling Orders (Mar. 21, 2019 and Oct. 15, 2019); Scheduling Order (Nov. 26, 2019) (extending discovery cutoff until January 31, 2020), the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 19; Def.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mem."), ECF No. 19-1; Pl.'s Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mot."), ECF No. 20; Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. & Opp'n Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Opp'n"), ECF No. 20-1. For the reasons set forth below, LOC's motion is granted and plaintiff's motion is denied.
The factual allegations underlying plaintiff's claims are described first followed by a summary of plaintiff's various administrative complaints culminating in the instant suit.
Plaintiff, a 64-year-old man, worked at LOC for sixteen years, until his retirement on June 15, 2018. Def.'s Statement of Material Facts ("Def.'s SMF") ¶¶ 1, 4, ECF No. 19-2; Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts ("Pl.'s SMF") ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 20-1. For most of his career at LOC, plaintiff worked at LOC's Federal Library Information Network ("FEDLINK") Division, which is responsible for developing and sharing educational and informational resources for federal libraries and their staffs. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 1, 4-5; Pl.'s SMF ¶¶ 1-2. The issues plaintiff complains about in this lawsuit occurred in the last year of his employment at LOC, after he suffered a stroke in April 2017. Def.'s SMF ¶ 9; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 3. Plaintiff's colleagues were aware of the stroke, which caused cognitive difficulties as well as a reduction in his motor control, necessitating his use of a cane. Pl.'s SMF ¶¶ 4-6; Def.'s Response to Pl.'s SMF ( ) at 2-5, ECF No. 25-3.
The month after his stroke, plaintiff requested, on May 10, 2017, and LOC approved, advanced sick leave, to allow him to return to work on a partial basis and to leave work fortherapy appointments. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 11-12; Pl.'s Ex. 9. He also requested, and LOC approved, participation in the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program, giving him access to other employees' unused leave days. Def.'s SMF ¶ 12; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 8. In support of his additional leave request under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., separate from his advanced sick leave request, plaintiff submitted medical documentation indicating that he had difficulty "emailing, typing, writing, [and] talking" and that he would need to leave work for rehabilitative therapy twice a week. Def.'s SMF ¶ 14. LOC granted plaintiff's request for FMLA leave. Def.'s SMF ¶ 15.
On June 16, 2017, less than two months after his stroke, plaintiff requested permission to telework because of the effects of his stroke. Def.'s SMF ¶ 17; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 16. LOC denied the request, citing the large volume of work at FEDLINK and stating that plaintiff "cannot sufficiently complete [his] assigned tasks without further training and oversight." Def.'s SMF ¶ 17. LOC never subsequently provided such training. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 17. LOC agreed, however, to permit plaintiff to arrive at work as early as 6:30 AM, which was the time plaintiff had always arrived at work before his stroke, to help ensure that he could attend his therapy appointments. Pl.'s SMF ¶¶ 12-13. LOC also helped facilitate plaintiff's return to work by bringing him files he would have had difficulty retrieving himself and providing him with assistive technologies. Id. ¶¶ 10-11.
Plaintiff returned to work on June 26, 2017, on a two-day per week schedule, working for four hours each day. Def.'s SMF ¶ 18. On June 28, plaintiff emailed his supervisors informing them that he usually started his workday at 6:30 AM and asking for "a defined list of [his] proposed duties in writing" in order to "know what [he was] being evaluated on." Def.'s SMF ¶ 19; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 18. The following day, he wrote another email to his supervisors requestingtransfer out of FEDLINK "[d]ue to [his] current medical condition and the undue stress" in FEDLINK. Def.'s SMF ¶ 20; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 20. His direct supervisor at the time, Georgette Harris, responded roughly a week later. She did not grant the request, explaining that "at this time FEDLINK has more than enough work to keep everyone busy." Def.'s Ex. 21 (), ECF No. 19-23. On June 29, 2017, plaintiff requested additional advanced sick leave, which was denied on the grounds that FEDLINK had a high workload requiring employees to be physically present. Def.'s SMF ¶ 21; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 21. On the form denying plaintiff's advanced sick leave request, the Director of Human Resources noted that plaintiff was "[c]onsidering disability retirement," although plaintiff indicated on the same form that he was not. Pl.'s Ex. 17 (June 29, 2017 Request for Advance Sick Leave), ECF No. 21.1
In July 2017, Isabella Marques de Castilla became plaintiff's direct supervisor, and on July 5, 2017, she sent him an email reiterating that his reassignment request had been denied because of FEDLINK's high volume of work and requiring him to report to work at 8:30 AM on the two days per week that he worked, rather than at 6:30 AM. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 24-26; Pl.'s SMF ¶¶ 22-25. As Castilla explained in the email, "given [plaintiff's] limited duty schedule, [his] presence in the office is required at a time when other FEDLINK personnel are also present in order to communicate and collaborate with [him] on mission requirements and deadlines." Def.'s Ex. 24 (), ECF No. 19-26.
Plaintiff had a difficult working relationship with Castilla. On July 11, 2017, plaintiff soiled himself at his workstation because of the effects of his stroke and he left to change his clothes, requesting leave for the remainder of the day. Def.'s SMF ¶ 30; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 33. When he returned to his workstation after changing, he claims that he found a sticky note from Castilla indicating that his requested leave was disapproved and would be without pay. Dep. of Plaintiff ("Pl.'s Dep.") at 85:19-22, ECF No. 23-1. Plaintiff asked Castilla about the note and she made a joke about it, which plaintiff says left him feeling humiliated. Id. at 85:23-86:9. Plaintiff's leave request for that day was ultimately approved, however. Def.'s SMF ¶ 30; Pl.'s Resp. SMF at 15.
For the remainder of the summer and into the fall of 2017, plaintiff's relationship with Castilla continued to sour. He often asked Castilla for clarification regarding assignments, drawing her impatience. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 35. For instance, on one occasion, plaintiff emailed Castilla that he did not understand a certain assignment; she responded that she "ha[d] given [him] everything [he] need[ed] to process this order." Def.'s SMF ¶ 33. On multiple occasions, Castilla orally reprimanded plaintiff for taking phone calls. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 37. Plaintiff eventually asked Castilla, via email, to stop doing that, explaining that he was speaking with his doctor. See Pl.'s Ex. 25 (), ECF No. 21-1. Later the same day, at a performance meeting, Castilla allegedly accused plaintiff of spending four hours on a personal phone call—a call plaintiff claims would have been impossible given his speech difficulties following his stroke. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 25.
From LOC's perspective, plaintiff struggled to complete his assigned work. For instance, on July 5, 2017, Castilla wrote to plaintiff regarding an assignment and included written directions. Def.'s SMF ¶ 28. She followed up roughly two weeks later when the assignment remained incomplete, stating that this task should have taken plaintiff only six or eight hours tocomplete and directing him to send it to her that day. Id. ¶ 34. A few days later, with the assignment still incomplete, Castilla expressed frustration that plaintiff was waiting for responses from various contacts to complete the assignment instead of proactively seeking other tasks to do in the interim. Id. ¶ 37. Later in July, plaintiff received a separate assignment described as a "simple task" and was instructed to complete it by the following day. He did not do so, explaining that this was the first time he had performed the assigned task and had not received adequate instructions on how to complete it. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial