Degefu v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-cv-3548 (BAH) |
| Parties | SEHIN DEGEFU, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Sehin Degefu began working as a pharmacist with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs in 2008, where she alleges that, following her diagnosis of Raynaud's Disease the following year, she was subject to a years-long series of discriminatory actions at her workplace. After pursuing two complaints before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which were dismissed by an Administrative Law Judge on April 9, 2019, she filed the instant complaint before this Court alleging discrimination failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, and retaliation, all on the basis of her disability and requests for reasonable accommodation. See generally Compl. ECF No. 1. Pending before this Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defs.' Mot. Summ. J ( ), ECF No. 19. For the reasons set forth below, this motion is denied.
The factual background and procedural history relevant to the pending motion are described below.
Plaintiff began working as a pharmacist at the VA Medical Center's Pharmacy Service Unit in the Outpatient Section in Washington, D.C., on January 22, 2008. Compl. ¶ 10; Defs.' Mot., Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ( ) ¶ 1, ECF No. 19-10. At some point in 2009, she was diagnosed with Raynaud's Disease, a disorder in which blood vessels- particularly in the extremities-narrow in response to cold or stress, resulting in a temporary loss of blood flow to the surface of the skin. Compl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff sought three reasonable accommodations at her workplace in the wake of her diagnosis. The first was permission to park inside a parking garage, allowing her to minimize potential exposure to harsh weather. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 4, EEOC Decision No. 570-2014-00569X (April 9, 2019) (“EEOC Judgment”) at 6, ECF No. 19-4. This accommodation appears to have been granted without issue. In 2012, however, plaintiff requested another reasonable work accommodation for her disability-which plaintiff alleges set off a cascade of discriminatory actions against her, beginning with the discriminatory animus of her direct supervisor, Tamiru Adisu.
In February 2012, plaintiff informally requested permission from her supervisors to use a space heater at her work station-a request that was accommodated immediately while she sought an official reasonable accommodation. EEOC Judgment at 6. The following month, she officially requested the reasonable accommodation, which was granted. Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ( ) at 6, ECF No. 22.
According to plaintiff, soon after she made this request, Adisu began verbally harassing her. She testified in the administrative hearing that she and Adisu had initially enjoyed a positive relationship, but after her request, her supervisor “became . . . a different person.” Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 1, Excerpted Testimony of Sehin Degefu at EEOC Hr'g on Merits (Aug. 7, 2017) (“Pl.'s Excerpted Hr'g Tr. (Degefu)”) at 7, ECF No. 22-2. She provided evidence of at least six different incidents spanning from April to September 2012 in which Adisu “verbally abused Plaintiff . . . in the presence of patients,” “sabotaged her work efforts,” “accused [plaintiff] of throwing work on [a] desk,” and accused plaintiff of “insubordination,” “disrespect,” “being AWOL,” and making mistakes at work. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22-25, 27-28. Plaintiff has described a series of unprovoked interactions with Adisu in which he yelled at plaintiff, criticizing her “attitude” and “body language,” often in front of colleagues and patients. Pl.'s Excerpted Hr'g Tr. (Degefu) at 8. In September, plaintiff alleges that Adisu's harassment escalated, with the supervisor sending multiple emails each day inquiring about her whereabouts and copying her second-line supervisor Linwood Moore and third-line supervisor Terrill Washington. Those emails asked questions such as when plaintiff went to the bathroom, for how long, and when she returned. Id. at 17. At this point, she “became sick” because her workplace had become so upsetting; she testified that she “was in Mr. Moore's office almost on a daily basis . . . crying.” Id.
During this period, plaintiff lodged with Moore multiple complaints against Adisu, and in turn, Adisu and other unspecified co-workers lodged complaints with Moore against plaintiff. EEOC Judgment at 6; Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 15, ECF No. 22-1. In November 2012, plaintiff received a performance review, written by Adisu, stating that her “refusal to speak to many of her coworkers and her immediate supervisor concerning patient care matters has severely damaged her ability to effectively communicate,” and ranking her “excellent,” rather than “outstanding.” Compl. ¶ 29; EEOC Judgment at 6. Previously, plaintiff had received only “outstanding” appraisals. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 29.
Although plaintiff did not seek a transfer from her position in the Outpatient Section, on September 3, 2012, she was informed that she was reassigned to the Primary Care Clinic, which occurred in October of that year. Compl. ¶ 26; EEOC Judgment at 6; Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff vehemently opposed the transfer, arguing with Moore and Washington that she felt it was unfair for her to be forced to leave her years-long position due to her supervisor's harassment. Pl.'s Excerpted Hr'g Tr. (Degefu) at 16-17.
Even after plaintiff's transfer, Adisu continued to seek out plaintiff. In a January 2013 meeting with Washington and a human resources supervisor, plaintiff expressed her concern that Adisu was continuing to harass her. Compl. ¶ 33. Later, on July 15, 2014, Adisu entered the Primary Care Clinic, where plaintiff alleges he lingered at her doorway and “stared at her in a menacing manner.” Compl. ¶ 35; Pl.'s Excerpted Hr'g Tr. (Degefu) at 22-23. See also Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 7, Excerpted Testimony of Connie Wheadon at EEOC Hr'g on Merits (Aug. 8, 2017) at 85 (). When plaintiff called Moore about the encounter, he reportedly replied that he did not care. Id.
Around the same time that plaintiff was transferred, the Department of Veterans Affairs instituted a policy change whereby all pharmacists were promoted to the GS-12 level and required to participate in rotations that included evening and weekend shifts approximately once every nine weeks. EEOC Judgment at 6-7. In order to work those new shifts, the outpatient pharmacists, including plaintiff, had to be cross-trained with inpatient pharmacy skills-an extended process that resulted in plaintiff not being scheduled to work an evening shift until September 2014. Id. at 7. But see Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 22 ().
Beginning in August 2014, plaintiff formally requested that she not be required to work evening shifts. Compl. ¶ 37; see also Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 18, Notice of Informal EEO Contact (Sept. 9, 2014) ( that plaintiff contacted the Office of Resolution Management at the VA Department complaining that her requests to only work the day shift were denied), ECF No. 222. The basis for this request is mired in disagreement between the parties. First, the parties contest plaintiff's originally stated bases for the accommodation request, but at least one of her proffered reasons was that the night shift could aggravate her disability. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 19; EEOC Judgment at 6 (); Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶¶ 19, 23 (). Second, the parties spar over whether the night shift would have subjected plaintiff to cold temperatures: defendants urge that plaintiff was told by management that she could conduct the shift from rooms kept at normal temperatures, without venturing into the colder IV room; plaintiff argues that the evening shifts maintained only two pharmacists at a time, so that if the other pharmacist was ever unavailable, she would be required to supervise the technician in the colder IV room. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 24-26; Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 23. In any case, intervening events that Fall mooted the issue.
On September 24, 2014, plaintiff attempted suicide in the parking lot of her workplace, and she was subsequently hospitalized and diagnosed with depression. Compl. ¶ 42; Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ( ) at 13, ECF No. 19. Her physician submitted repeated documentation to defendants requesting that plaintiff be allowed to work only the day shift as a result of her depression diagnosis, rather than due to her Raynaud's Disease. Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 21, Ltr. from Dr. Adam Lowy (Jan. 2, 2015), ECF No. 22-2; id., Ex. 22, Ltr. from Dr. Adam Lowy (Jan. 27, 2015), ECF No. 22-2. id., Ex. 23, Ltr. from Dr. Adam Lowy (Feb. 11, 2015), ECF No. 22-2; id., Ex. 24, Ltr. from Dr. Adam Lowy (June 4, 2015), ECF No. 22-2. Defendants approved this request on April 14, 2015. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 13. While this request was pending, plaintiff was scheduled to work an evening shift in January 2015; on the advice of her doctor, she did not attend the shift and was “AWOL'd.” Pl.'s Excerpted Hr'g Tr. (Degefu) at 38. In the end, plaintiff apparently never worked a night...
To continue reading
Request your trial