Decou-Snowton v. Jefferson Par.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-1302 |
| Parties | DONYA D. DECOU-SNOWTON v. JEFFERSON PARISH, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
MAG SECTION 3
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Rec. Doc No. 34) filed by Jefferson Parish, Roy Juncker, and Christopher Trosclair (“Defendants”). Plaintiff Donya Decou-Snowton, has filed an opposition. (Rec. Doc. No 38). Having considered the briefs and the applicable law, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as outlined below.
a. Initial Complaint
Plaintiff Donya Decou-Snowton filed her complaint, as amended, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender, race, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1983, Title I of the Americans with Disability Act and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“ADA”), Title V, § 503 of the ADA, and 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (prohibiting retaliation), Title VII, and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The complaint also alleges violations of Louisiana state laws prohibiting intentional discrimination including the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (“LEDL”) protections against reprisal. (Rec. Doc. No. 1, pp. 1-2).[1] Snowton is an African-American female hired by Jefferson Parish as a Juvenile Probation Officer for the Department of Juvenile Services (“DJS”) in 2008. (Rec. Doc. No. 1, p. 4). Snowton was later promoted to the supervisory position of Juvenile Probation Officer III in 2015. Plaintiff contends that she began suffering harassment and discrimination following an anonymous complaint about DJS which culminated in her demotion to Juvenile Home Detention Supervisor on November 30, 2019 and her ultimate termination from DJS on June 12, 2020. The relevant timeline below is helpful to the analysis of the issues herein.
On August 23, 2019, Snowton filed a grievance against her immediate supervisor, Joan Ruiz, concerning a meeting that took place with Director Roy Juncker, Assistant Director Christopher Trosclair, and Probation Officer Erin Ronquille.[2] Id. Plaintiff alleges that during the meeting, Juncker retaliated against her and verbally advised that he was removing a prior-approved accommodation to pick up her children during her lunch hour. Id. The accommodation was revoked in writing on August 26, 2019. Id.
On August 28, 2019, Snowton received an email from Trosclair concerning a separate complaint filed by an assistant district attorney (“ADA”) regarding issues alleged to have occurred on August 22, 2019, in Jefferson Parish Drug Court (“Drug Court”). Id. On August 29, 2019, Snowton provided a two-page written response which included eleven witnesses present in Drug Court who had personal knowledge regarding the complaints. Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that Trosclair did not reach out to any of the individuals named except for Dr. Ryals, a white male and that no persons of color were interviewed or questioned, and no impartial investigation was conducted. Id. On October 11, 2019, Snowton claims Trosclair also demanded a response to questions regarding her status with the BI Total Access System and sent her “a harassing and demeaning message” for untimely responding to the questions despite her responding within the indicated timeframe. (Rec Doc. No. 1. at 6-7). The same day, Snowton filed a second grievance based on the “retaliatory behavior and actions” for filing the previous grievance. Id. at 7.
On October 15, 2019, Snowton alleges that she was advised that a meeting to address her grievance would take place that same day before Ruiz and Trosclair. Id. Snowton alleges that the meeting was instead “used as a further attempt to harass [her] and find information related to the [A]DA complaint and violation of BI policy.” Id. During a subsequent October 22, 2019 meeting, Plaintiff alleges that Juncker attempted to further threaten and intimidate her. Id. at 8.
The complaint further alleges that on November 6, 2019, Trosclair delivered to and instructed Snowton to sign a document without allowing her to review it in its entirety. Id. Snowton claims that she only subsequently realized that the document was, in fact, an untimely disciplinary hearing notice in direct contravention of Jefferson Parish Administrative Management Policies requiring employees be provided with a five-day notice of hearing. Id. The initial hearing was cancelled but Snowton claims to have received another notice letter-this time on November 19, 2019, rescheduling the hearing to November 20, 2019-again in violation of the notice requirements. Id. at 9. During the meeting, Snowton claims she was repeatedly cut off and not allowed to speak in her own defense, accused of breaching the BI system, and blamed for an unfavorable Drug Court ruling. Id. at 10.
On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff alleges that she received a hand delivered disciplinary letter demoting her to the position of Juvenile Home Detention Supervisor and modifying her schedule to the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Id.[3] On November 27, 2019, Snowton obtained permission to leave early and take medication for anxiety surrounding her husband's medical condition and stressors of work. Id. The same day, she received notification that her training for the new position would take place on November 30, 2019-despite previously advising Juncker that she would be unavailable on that date. Id.
On November 30, 2019, Snowton took sick leave and remained out on leave. On December 2, 2019, Trosclair sought a written statement from a physician certifying that she was ill during the period of sick leave. Id. She submitted the medical documentation to Trosclair on the following day. Id. On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff informed Trosclair through submission of an FMLA application that she would remain out on FMLA and sick leave. Id. at 12. On December 10, 2019, Juncker informed Snowton that she was AWOL and instructed her to turn in any Jefferson Parish property. Id.
On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff sent a letter to Gretchen Tilton, with Jefferson Parish Human Resources, Juncker, and Trosclair advising that Jefferson Parish was in violation of its own policies as well as state and federal law regarding FMLA leave and that a response to her application and pay for the week of November 30, 2019 was required. Id. The next day, Tilton advised Plaintiff that her FMLA leave was approved but that she was still considered AWOL for the week of November 30, 2019 and provided her a copy of an approved application for FMLA leave commencing on December 7, 2019 through June 7, 2020. Id.
On December 26, 2019, Snowton appealed her demotion to the Jefferson Parish Civil Service, and alleged discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Id. On December 30, 2019, Snowton received email notification from Jefferson Parish counsel indicating that she had filed a fraudulent FMLA claim and required her to report to duty on January 1, 2020, as Dr. Russo had advised that her husband's condition would not improve, and she could return to work. Id. The complaint alleges that during the Civil Service hearing, Tilton admitted to contacting Dr. Russo on December 18, 2019, without permission from Plaintiff and her husband. Id. at 13. Plaintiff further alleges that Juncker testified during the same hearing that he did not believe Snowton was ill or that she needed to care for her husband based on posts on her private Facebook page. Id. at 12. On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff contacted the Department of Labor to make a complaint about the failure of DJS to comply with FMLA and unpaid sick leave, but no investigation was initiated. Id.
On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff received three letters from Jefferson Parish. The first concerned the AWOL designation for the week of requested sick leave. Id. at 14. The second letter concerned her failure to return Jefferson Parish property and included charges to replace items that were alleged not to be returned. Id. The third letter informed Plaintiff that her FMLA leave would expire on February 28, 2020, and if she did not return to work, she would be considered to have resigned from her position. Id. at 15.
On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff requested an extension of her FMLA leave and a reasonable accommodation. Id. The same day, Juncker responded as follows:
Your 12 weeks of FMLA has been exhausted. To request an additional 12 weeks of leave without pay is not a reasonable ADA accommodation. The parish has been reasonable in extending your FMLA request past the January 1, 2020, return date as noted by the doctor. Your failure to return to work tomorrow for your scheduled 8AM-4PM shift at Rivarde will result in you being considered to have resigned your position effective February 29, 2020, in accordance with Personnel Rule IX, Section 5.
Id. (emphasis in original). On March 2, 2020, Tilton emailed Plaintiff claiming the above correspondence was sent in error and provided her with ADA forms to complete and return within four business days. Id. Plaintiff timely provided completed ADA forms from her physician. Id. On March 9, 2020, Tilton emailed Plaintiff to request further information concerning her application and set a call to discuss, informing Plaintiff she had no right to have counsel during the call. Id. at 16.
Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings and doctor appointments were delayed. Id. On May 22, 2020 Plaintiff advised that she was unable to return to her physician despite attempts to get an appointment. On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff received a letter advising she had used seventy days of leave without pay, that her FMLA expired on February 28, 2020, and she was released from...
To continue reading
Request your trial