Butler v. Va. Dep't of Transp.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Writing for the Court: John A. Gibney, Jr. Senior United States District Judge.
• Docket Number: Civil 3:24cv286
• Decision Date: 03 December 2024
• Citation: Butler v. Va. Dep't of Transp., Civil 3:24cv286 (E.D. Va. Dec 03, 2024)
• Parties: GLADYS JEAN BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants.
• topic: Civil Rights,Administrative Law

1

GLADYS JEAN BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 3:24cv286

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

December 3, 2024

OPINION

John A. Gibney, Jr. Senior United States District Judge.

The pro se plaintiff, Gladys Jean Butler, worked for the Virginia Department of transportation (“VDOT”) from April 2013 to December 2022. Butler now sues VDOT and two of her former supervisors, Lawrence K. Davis and Deborah M. Gardner (collectively, “the defendants”) asserting that the defendants created a hostile work environment, engaged in discrimination, and retaliated against her in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq (“ADA”).^[1] Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Butler's claims against VDOT, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss as to VDOT. Further Butler's claims against Davis and Gardner in their official capacities fail for the same reasons she cannot sue VDOT, and the ADA does not allow Butler to sue Davis and Gardner in their individual capacities. The Court, therefore will grant the motion to dismiss as to Davis and Gardner.

I. BACKGROUND^[2]

Butler worked in VDOT's Records Management Center (“RMC”) as a Program Analyst from April 25, 2013, to December 20, 2022. Butler believed that her then supervisor, Davis, interacted with her in an inappropriate manner from 2014 to 2018 when he, among other things, touched her left shoulder, yelled at her, gave her unsolicited driving advice, and directed her coworker to assign her tasks. Due to Butler's concerns, she proposed that she report directly to Gardner, Davis's supervisor, instead of Davis. Gardner approved Butler's request.

When Butler started reporting directly to Gardner, Butler's workspace moved from the building she originally worked in with Davis to a new building where Gardner worked. But during the CO VID-19 pandemic, Butler worked remotely two days a week. In 2022, all teleworkers returned to their VDOT worksite full-time. VDOT decided to move all RMC staff-including Butler, Davis, and Gardner-to one location on the fifteenth floor of the VDOT Annex Building. Butler did not want to move workspaces because “the thought of working with [her] previous supervisor and possibly being subjected to the same behavior that led to [her] being moved to another section exacerbated [her] medical condition.” (ECF No. 3-1, at 7.) But in her request not to move to the fifteenth floor, she did not identify a medical condition or disability. On June 3, 2022, Gardner emailed Butler a reminder to report to the fifteenth floor by June 24, 2022. Two days later, Butler emailed VDOT's civil rights representative. She requested relocation away from the rest of the RMC team and indicated that she intended to submit an ADA request. VDOT personnel denied Butler's relocation request, which caused her to go on short term disability leave.

While on disability leave, Butler's doctors informed her that her mental and physical health began deteriorating due to stress and anxiety from the workplace. Butler maintains that she incurred a “mental disability of anxiety, stress, PTSD[,] and sleep deprivation” from VDOT's “bullying, hostile[J and toxic work environment.” (Id. at 19.) Consequently, on August 20,2022, Butler requested permanent, full-time telework pursuant to the ADA. Due to logistical issues, Butler did not submit medical documentation supporting her ADA request until November 9,2022. On November 29, 2022, Butler, Gardner, and other VDOT personnel met to clarify Butler's accommodation request. Butler explained that she initially asked for relocation to a workspace apart from the rest of the RMC team. Because VDOT denied her relocation request, however, she sought full-time telework. VDOT ultimately denied Butler's telework request but offered her an alternative accommodation which would allow Butler to take up to three fifteen-minute breaks throughout the workday, in addition to her lunch break. The accommodation required Butler to inform Gardner each time she began a break and each time she returned. While Butler initially accepted VDOT's alternative accommodations, and tried to abide by its terms, she later rescinded her acceptance. In Butler's view, coordinating each of her breaks with Gardner did not allow Butler to “decompress and work through any anxiety or stress she was experiencing” when she still had to “interact with [Davis,] the object [] of [her] anxiety, stressf,] and PTSD.” (Id. at 19.) Thus, to preserve her mental health and prepare for necessary surgery, Butler elected to remain on short term disability leave.

On December 5, 2022, Butler “attempted to return to work” but “was unable to go up to the 15^th floor.” (Id. at 18.) As Butler waited in the lobby, Gardner approached and said that she expected Butler to report to the fifteenth floor. Butler told Gardner that she could not work on the fifteenth floor and that she had to go home because she did not feel well. On December 8, 2022, Butler told Gardner that she intended to return to work, but asked Gardner to relocate her workspace again. Gardner denied the request. Because Butler felt that she could not return to a workspace that was “unhealthy, toxic[,] and non-productive” for her, Butler “transitioned into long-term disability status on December 20, 2022, thus separating her employment” at VDOT. (Id. at 12, 18.)

IL DISCUSSION

Butler alleges that the defendants violated the ADA by creating a hostile work environment, discriminating against her based on her disability, failing to accommodate her disability, and retaliating against her when she reported her supervisors' inappropriate behavior. VDOT moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) based on its state sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Gardner and Davis likewise move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1),^[3]arguing that they cannot face liability in either their official or individual capacities under the ADA.^[4] A. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion 1. Rule 12(b)(1) standard

A court should assess a 12(b)(1) motion under the same standard as a 12(b)(6) motion. Ministry of Def. of State of Kuwait v. Naffa, 105 F.4th 154, 159 (4th Cir. 2024). In other words, the Court must “accept the truth of all facts alleged in the complaint and must deny the motion if those facts are sufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. Additionally, a “document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,'” and “‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).^[5] The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging and proving that federal jurisdiction exists. See Kaplan v. James, 25 F.Supp.3d 835, 838 (E.D. Va. 2014); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603, 607 (E.D. Va. 2005).

2. VDOT a. State Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign immunity “is the privilege of the sovereign not to be sued without its consent.” Va. Off. for Prot. & Advoc. v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 253 (2011). “State sovereign immunity is ‘based on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.'” Stewart v. North Carolina, 393 F.3d 484, 488 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 416 (1979)). “As a general rule, the Commonwealth [of Virginia] is immune both from actions at law for damages and from suits in equity to restrain governmental action or to compel such action.” All. to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth of Va., Dep't of Env't Quality ex rel. State Water Control Bd., 621 S.E.2d 78, 96, 270 Va. 423, 455 (Va. 2005). This immunity extends to state agencies, such as VDOT. See Thomas v. Va. Dep't of Transp. (Bristol District), l:22cv36, 2023 WL 4355055, at *4 (W.D. Va. July 5, 2023); Passaro v. Virginia, 935 F.3d 243,245 (4th Cir. 2019). If slate sovereign immunity applies, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 53, 76 (1996).

Only Virginia's General Assembly may abrogate Virginia's state sovereign immunity. All. to Save the Mattaponi, 621 S.E.2d 78 at 96. “A waiver of sovereign immunity will not be implied from general statutory language but must be explicitly and expressly stated in the statute.” Id. The plaintiff must prove “that an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity exists and that none of the statute's waiver exceptions apply to [their] particular claim.” Welch v. United States, 409 F.3d 646, 650-51 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996)).

“[T]he Commonwealth [of Virginia] has not waived its sovereign immunity from private lawsuits under Title I of the ADA in either state or federal court.” Passaro, 935 F.3d at 248. Butler does not offer any evidence to refute this finding, nor does she address state sovereign immunity in her response brief. State sovereign immunity thus shields VDOT from Butler's ADA claims.

b. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Eleventh Amendment immunity further bars Butler's claims against VDOT. Eleventh Amendment immunity is narrower than the common law doctrine of state sovereign immunity. Stewart, 393 F.3d at 488. “This immunity protects a state's dignity and fiscal integrity from federal court judgments and acts as a limitation on the federal judiciary's Article III powers. Beaulieu v. Vermont, 807 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir. 2015). Although the Eleventh Amendment provides that a state is immune from suit in federal court brought by “Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State,” the Supreme Court has extended its applicability to...