Geter v. U.S. Gov't Publ'g Office

• Decision Date: 31 January 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-482 (RC)
• Citation: 436 F.Supp.3d 227
• Parties: Henry GETER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

436 F.Supp.3d 227

Henry GETER, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 16-482 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed January 31, 2020

Daniel E. Kenney, DK Associates, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD, for Plaintiff.

Brian J. Field, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Mr. Henry Geter, is a former employee of Defendant, the United States Government Publishing Office (GPO). This Court has previously resolved one employment-related lawsuit by Mr. Geter against the GPO. See generally Geter v. Gov't Publ'g Office (Geter I ), No. 13-916, 2016 WL 3526909 (D.D.C. June 23, 2016). In the current case, Mr. Geter claims that the GPO failed to accommodate his disability and retaliated against him for engaging in protected activities. The GPO has now moved for summary judgment as to both claims. Because Mr. Geter has not advanced evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in his favor on either claim, the Court will grant the motion in full.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Geter and the GPO have had a long and contentious relationship, not all of which is relevant to the pending motion. But because Mr. Geter claims here that he faced retaliation in part for filing a complaint in Geter I , it is worth reviewing the facts and procedural history of that case.

A. The Prior Case: Geter I

Mr. Geter began working at the GPO in 2002 and was eventually promoted to motor vehicle operator. See Geter I , 2016 WL 3526909, at *2. In that position, he was required to have a valid commercial driver's license (CDL) and the ability to lift loads of up to 50 pounds. Id.

In March of 2009, Mr. Geter injured his back at work and stopped working. Id. After some negotiations and disputes with the GPO (and medical evaluations by both a Department of Labor medical examiner and Mr. Geter's private physician), he eventually returned to work in August 2010. Id. at *2–3.

The events giving rise to Geter I took place shortly after Mr. Geter's return to duty. See id. at *3. Without endorsing either side's version of events, the basic gist is that Mr. Geter was asked by his supervisor to drive a truck, even though Mr. Geter maintained that doing so would violate medical restrictions imposed in the wake of his 2009 injury. Id. But facing a skeptical boss, Mr. Geter ultimately complied and suffered (or at least claimed to have suffered) an injury as he was lifting himself into his vehicle. Id. at *3–4. Shortly thereafter, after refusing to drive due to his (claimed) injury, Mr. Geter was fired. Id. at *4. Based on these events, Mr. Geter sought counseling with the GPO's equal employment opportunity office, filed a formal complaint of discrimination that was ultimately dismissed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and finally, on June 18, 2013, filed the Geter I complaint. Id. at *4–5.

Geter I put forward a variety of claims, namely race and age discrimination, intentional infliction of mental harm, creation of a retaliatory hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliatory discrimination. See generally id. Many of these claims, this Court ultimately found, were not viable because Mr. Geter had failed to exhaust the relevant administrative remedies. See id. at *6–7. As to those remaining, this Court found that Mr. Geter had failed to set forth evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment. See id. at *7–16.

B. The Current Case

While Geter I was being litigated, the relationship between Mr. Geter and the GPO remained contentious. We take up the narrative in 2013. By that time, for reasons not relevant here, Mr. Geter had been terminated from his position at the GPO, but the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) had ordered his reinstatement; he remained on a period of administrative leave. See Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts ("Pl.'s SOF") at 11–12, ECF No. 59; Def.'s Statement of Material Facts ("Def.'s SOF") at 4, ECF No. 55-2.¹

1. The November 25 Meeting

In a November 21, 2013 letter, the GPO recalled Mr. Geter from leave and instructed him to report to work on November 25, "ready, willing and able to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of your position." Ltr. from G. Thomas to H. Geter (Nov. 21, 2013) at 2, ECF No. 55-14. The letter added that "you will need to bring with you when you report your valid commercial driver's license (CDL)." Id. Mr. Geter reported to work as instructed—though without a valid CDL. Pl.'s SOF at 13. As he explained to his supervisor, Mr. Gregory Robinson, he had not been able to obtain such a license due to continuing medical restrictions. Id. ; see also Def.'s SOF at 4 ("Geter ... claimed that he could not obtain a valid CDL because a doctor would not clear him."). He requested that Mr. Robinson transfer him "to a desk position until his doctor cleared him with no restrictions and he was able to obtain a CDL." Pl.'s SOF at 13; see also Def.'s SOF at 5 ("According to Geter, he also requested an accommodation during this meeting—specifically, a transfer to a desk position.").

According to the GPO, Mr. Robinson explained to Mr. Geter that there were no vacant positions and then—because Mr. Geter was lacking the CDL required for his actual position—sent him home to remain on administrative leave. Def.'s SOF at 5. According to Mr. Geter, however, Mr. Robinson did not tell him that there were no vacant positions; instead, Mr. Robinson informed him that "we aren't here to talk about your reasonable accommodation" before sending him home. Pl.'s SOF at 6.

2. The December 16 Letter

On December 16, the GPO sent Mr. Geter another letter. See Def.'s SOF at 5; Ltr. from G. Robinson to H. Geter (Dec. 16, 2013) ("Dec. 16 Letter"), ECF No. 55-19.

The letter began by acknowledging that Mr. Geter had returned to duty on November 25, though without a valid CDL. Dec. 16 Letter at 2. Under the apparent impression that Mr. Geter might be able to obtain a medical clearance and license in short order, it directed him to report to work by January 2, 2014, "ready and able to work with a valid CDL in your possession." Id. At the same time, it acknowledged Mr. Geter's injury and transfer request. See id. ("[I]n your return to duty meeting you alleged that you had suffered injury to your back and also that you would like to request a transfer. If it is in fact your desire to seek a reasonable accommodation, you need to inform me specifically what accommodation/s you are seeking."). It concluded with a warning:

[I]f ... you are not able to perform the functions of your position with your valid CDL, and you have not submitted a valid documented request for reasonable accommodation by ... [January 2, 2014], I will be forced to propose your removal from Federal service for your inability to perform the essential functions of your position due to the loss of your CDL.

Id. at 3.

Mr. Geter maintains that he did not receive a copy of this letter. Pl.'s SOF at 8 ("Although Geter's elderly mother may have signed [for] the letter, the letter was not given to Mr. Geter.").

3. The December 23 Phone Call

On December 23, Mr. Geter called Mr. Robinson directly to discuss his return to duty. Id. at 14. Mr. Geter maintains that he renewed his request for an accommodation during this call, see id. , whereas the GPO claims that he did not, see Def.'s Response to Pl.'s Statement of Genuine Issues at 5, ECF No. 61-1. Specifically, the GPO relies on a memorandum drafted by Mr. Robinson a couple of weeks after the call:

Mr. Geter inquired about the Request for Reasonable Accommodations. As I explained the process to him, Mr. Geter informed me that he was not going to apply for Reasonable Accommodations. I asked Mr. Geter if he was sure about this and he replied "I'm not going to put in for it; all I want is a chair". I replied "a chair". Mr. Geter said "a chair for my back". I informed him to contact his doctor and request for a chair.

Robinson Mem. (Jan. 8, 2014) at 2, ECF No. 55-20.

4. The January 3 Meeting

On January 3, 2014,² Mr. Geter again reported to Mr. Robinson for duty, still lacking a valid CDL. Def.'s SOF at 6. And again, Mr. Geter was sent home to stay on administrative leave. See id. According to Mr. Geter, he reiterated (now for the third time) his request for an accommodation at this meeting, but Mr. Robinson declined to respond. Pl.'s SOF at 9; see also Geter Aff. (Apr. 7, 2017) at 3, ECF No. 55-16 ("I told Mr. Robinson that I still had lifting restrictions, could not return to full duty and could not obtain a CDL.... Mr. Robinson did not respond to any of my reasonable accommodation requests.").

5. Removal

On January 16, Mr. Robinson initiated a proposal for Mr. Geter's removal; on January 29, the GPO sent Mr. Geter the formal proposal to remove. See Pl.'s SOF at 15; see also Def.'s SOF at 7. The proposal cited as justification the "[f]ailure to possess a valid Commercial Driver's License and ... [the] failure to perform the essential functions of your position." Proposal to Remove (Jan. 29, 2014) at 2, ECF No. 55-18. Mr. Geter objected to the proposed removal on March 10, but the GPO ultimately decided to accept the proposal on April 10. See Def.'s SOF at 7–8. Consistent with the proposed removal, the final removal decision charged that "[y]our actions have prohibited you from performing the essential functions of your position because you do not possess a valid Commercial Driver's License." Removal Decision (Apr. 10, 2014) at 3, ECF No. 55-26. Mr. Geter challenged his removal administratively, but the MSPB and EEOC both affirmed the GPO's decision. See Final Order of MSPB (July 15, 2015), ECF No. 16-7; Decision of EEOC (Feb. 10, 2016), ECF No. 16-8.

6. Filing and Subsequent Procedural History

After the unfavorable EEOC decision, Mr. Geter brought this action. His initial complaint alleged...