Coats v. McDonough

• Decision Date: 09 December 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20-cv-00298
• Parties: TIFFANY COATS, Plaintiff, v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, [1] Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

TIFFANY COATS, Plaintiff, v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, ^[1] Defendant.

No. 3:20-cv-00298

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

December 9, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 33, “Motion”). Plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. No. 40). Defendant has filed a Reply (Doc. No 44). The Motion is ripe for review.

For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Motion in part and grant it in part.

BACKGROUND^[2]

Plaintiff Tiffany Coats, is a citizen of Rutherford County, Tennessee. (Doc. No. 30 at 2). Defendant, Denis McDonough, is the current Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. (Id.). The current action stems from Plaintiff's employment at the VA Medical Center in Nashville Tennessee (“VA”). (Id. at 4). Plaintiff began working at the VA Medical Center on August 6, 2017 as a Supervisory Medical Support Assistant. (Id.). During this time, Plaintiff's first-line supervisor was Jennifer Lewis, a black woman. (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff is white. (Id. at 5).

On October 17, 2018, Plaintiff contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) counselor, stating she was being subjected to race and gender discrimination and a hostile work environment. (Id.). After this contact Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging employment discrimination.^[3] (Id. at 3). In January 2020, the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication issued a final order related to Plaintiff's complaint of discrimination, and informed Plaintiff she had the right to file a civil lawsuit. (Id.). Plaintiff filed the present action on April 9, 2020. (Id.). On April 14, 2020, Plaintiff requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). (Id.). Plaintiff was informed that Defendant had approved her request for “intermittent absences beginning 4/13/2020 through 4/12/2021 for up to 480 hours.” (Id. at 3-4). When Plaintiff made a request for leave under her FMLA entitlement in May 2020, Defendant denied this request and wrote Plaintiff as “AWOL” or “absent without pay.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiff filed another complaint with the EEOC on June 9, 2020 related to her FMLA denial.^[4] (Id.). At that time, the EEOC investigator instructed Plaintiff to add the factual substance of her complaint to her current federal case. (Id.). Plaintiff thereafter filed an “Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 10) and, thereafter, a seconded “Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 30), i.e., the operative Amended Complaint, which contains additional claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (“ADAA”).

Plaintiff's present action contains several claims. The First Cause of Action is for “Discrimination Based on Race and Hostile Work Environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”^[5] (Id. at 8). Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action is for “Reprisal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. A. § 2000e-3and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.” (Id. at 10). The Third (and final) Cause of Action is for “Failure to Provide an Accommodation pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, The [American with Disabilities] Amendments Act, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 US.C. 12112(b)(5) and retaliation.” (Id. at 11). Defendant requests the Court to dismiss some of these claims under 12(b)(6), arguing the following: (1) some incidents Plaintiff alleges as evidence of race discrimination and hostile work environment should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (2) incidents as to which Plaintiff conceded, during the EEO investigation, race was not a factor should be dismissed in relation to the race discrimination claim, and (3) Plaintiff's failure-to-accommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act/ADAA should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant's Motion is brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must take all the factual allegations in the complaint as true, as it has done above. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice. Id. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 1950. A legal conclusion, including one couched as a factual allegation, need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss, nor are mere recitations of the elements of a cause of action sufficient. Id.; Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010), cited in Abriq v. Hall, 295 F.Supp.3d 874, 877 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). Moreover, factual allegations that are merely consistent with the defendant's liability do not satisfy the claimant's burden, as mere consistency does not establish plausibility of entitlement to relief even if it supports the possibility of relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

In determining whether a complaint is sufficient under the standards of Iqbal and its predecessor and complementary case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), it may be appropriate to “begin [the] analysis by identifying the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. This can be crucial, as no such allegations count toward the plaintiff's goal of reaching plausibility of relief. To reiterate, such allegations include “bare assertions, ” formulaic recitation of the elements, and “conclusory” or “bald” allegations. Id. at 681. The question is whether the remaining allegations-factual allegations, i.e., allegations of factual matter-plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Id. If not, the pleading fails to meet the standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and thus must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 683.

As a general rule, matters outside the pleadings may not be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) unless the motion is converted to one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). When a document is referred to in the pleadings and is integral to the claims, it may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 219 F.Supp.3d 645, 652-53 (S.D. Ohio 2016); Blanch v. Trans Union, LLC, 333 F.Supp.3d 789, 791-92 (M.D. Tenn. 2018).

Importantly, the familiar burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973), holding modified by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), is inapplicable on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.^[6] A plaintiff need not allege facts specifically indicating that the plaintiff could carry the burden she might ultimately bear under McDonnell Douglas. This is because McDonnell Douglas “is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 510 (2002). A plaintiff is not required to plead what would qualify as a prima facie case for purposes of McDonnell Douglas. See, e.g., Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The district court's requirement that [the plaintiff's] complaint establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas and its progeny is contrary to Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent.”); Clough v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 13-2885-STA-tmp, 2014 WL 1330309, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2014) (“In light of Swierkiewicz, the Court concludes that strictly speaking Plaintiff need not plead all of the elements of the prima facie case in order to survive a motion to dismiss.”). The Court recently explained this in some detail in resolving a motion to dismiss a plaintiff's Tennessee Human Rights Act claims:

But since this is a Motion to Dismiss, and not a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff is not required to carry a burden of presenting evidence establishing a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2012). McDonnell Douglas “is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. 534 U.S. 506, 510-11 (2002). “[T]he precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and before discovery has unearthed the relevant facts and evidence, it may be difficult to define the appropriate formulation. Significantly, the Supreme Court identified the possibility that discovery may produce direct evidence of discrimination, rendering the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework inapplicable to a plaintiff's claims.” Keys, 684 F.3d at 609 (discussing Swierkiewicz) (internal citation omitted).

This only stands to reason. After all, the McDonnell Douglas framework contemplates that a defendant can, if necessary, attempt to prevail by setting forth its position on a factual issue (i.e., as to the existence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its challenged employment actions). 411 U.S. at 802. But except perhaps in a very limited sense (as for example when a district court will consider, if uncontradicted in a plaintiff's reply brief, a defendant's factual

...