Lozada v. DeJoy

• Decision Date: 28 March 2022
• Docket Number: CIVIL 20-1674 (DRD)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
• Parties: NANCY LOZADA, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

NANCY LOZADA, Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

CIVIL No. 20-1674 (DRD)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

March 28, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

Daniel R. Domínguez United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendant, Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General for the United States Postal Service's (hereinafter, “USPS”) Motion for Partial Dismissal and for a More Definite Statement (Docket No. 7).^[1] A Response in Opposition thereto was filed by Plaintiff, Nancy Lozada. See Docket No. 12. A Reply ensued shortly thereafter. See Docket No. 15.

Upon review, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal and for a More Definite Statement (Docket No. 7).

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed a civil action for damages pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (hereinafter, “ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., and under 29 U.S.C. § 794 in particular, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1

1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. (hereinafter, “ADEA”), “for intentional adverse and discriminatory employment actions to which Lozada was subjected by defendants.” Complaint, Docket No. 1 at p. 1. Lozada requests declaratory relief as to the alleged illegality of USPS's actions regarding “her employment, reinstatement order, compensation of [her] suffering, emotional distress, and moral damages, loss of wages (including back pay), costs, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees.” Id. Several Puerto Rico statutes were also raised.

Essentially, Lozada alleges that she was subject to discrimination on the basis of her age, (40+) when the Defendant failed to accommodate her in a position in favor of employees younger than 40 years old. As a result thereof, she was retaliated after requesting a reasonable accommodation. See id.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As stated in the Complaint, Lozada is a 52-year-old female who was born on June 13, 1969 and is a full-time Carrier Technician for the USPS. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 6. On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff suffered an injury to her right ankle while delivering mail. Id. at ¶ 8. Upon partially recovering, she returned to a limited duty job at the Bayamón station, delivering mail on a mounted route. Id. at ¶ 9. By December 4, 2016, Lozada returned to her regular carrier technician assignment, which consisted of five (5) walking routes at the Loíza station. Id. at ¶ 10. Shortly thereafter, as Plaintiff began experiencing pain and discomfort, she informed the situation to her manager, Erika Vazquez. According to Lozada, Vazquez was unable to help her because all the routes in the Loíza station are walking routes. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. Subsequently, Plaintiff visited her doctor who ordered an MRI which revealed a high-grade tear of anterior talofibular ligament and tenosynovitis. Id. at ¶ 13. She continued working until December 23, 2016, when she fell while performing her duties,

2

re-injuring her right ankle, and was placed in a cast until March 2, 2017. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. A claim was filed as a result thereof. Id. at ¶ 15. The DOL OWCP accepted Lozada's claims for benefits on April 12, 2017, and November 8, 2017, respectively. Id. at ¶¶ 20-27. Plaintiff began receiving treatment with a doctor that worked with OWCP cases and who agreed to treat her injuries on April 16, 2018. Id. at ¶ 30. Between then and November of 2018, Plaintiff allegedly attempted to return to work with limited duties by requesting a reasonable accommodation through Mayra Mendoza. Id. at ¶¶ 31-37. However, according to Plaintiff, Vega Baja Postmaster, Carlos Cabrera informed her that he was unable to offer her any work considering her doctor's Duty Status Report, Form CA-17. Id. at ¶¶ 36-37. Although Plaintiff claims that she has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain a work accommodation, on March 20, 2019, she received an Offer of Modified Assignment to work a (2.5) hour shift at the Loíza Station, but instead requested a reassignment to the Vega Baja office, as it is closer to her home. Id. at ¶¶ 41-44. Specifically, Plaintiff requested a reassignment transfer to the Vega Baja Office as an FTR sales/services, distribution associate, Level 6 position. Id. at ¶ 44. But on October 2, 2019, she was denied the position because of her “unacceptable attendance, work and safety record.” Id. at ¶ 47.

Plaintiff's discrimination claims stem from the fact that the USPS has allegedly hired or converted to regular, multiple employees at the Vega Baja Post Office after her injury, and most of them are under 40 years of age. Id. at ¶¶ 50-52. On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff was invited to an Accommodation Meeting with the Case Caribbean District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (hereinafter, “DRAC”). Id. at ¶ 55. Eventually, Plaintiff made initial contact with the USPS's EEO counselor and as a result thereof, on December 20, 2019, she filed a formal complaint

3

to the Post Office's EEO. Id. at ¶ 56; see also, Docket No. 7, Exhibit 1 at p. 3.^[2] In the EEO Complaint, the following claims as to discrimination based on sex (female), age, retaliation, and disability were raised:

1) Beginning on March 10, 2017, she did not receive compensation from the Office of Workers Compensation Program (OWCP)

2) On August 7, 2017, she received a letter stating effective February 22, 2017, her health benefits would be cancelled.

3) In October of 2018, she was not told there was no work available within her restrictions.

4) On October 2, 2019, she received notification that the modified job offer as a clerk in Vega Baja was denied due to her attendance and safety record.

See Docket No. 7, Exhibit No. 2 at pp. 1-2. On January 9, 2020, the EEO issued a Partial Acceptance/Partial Dismissal of Formal EEO Complaint accepting only Claim Four for investigation. Claims One, Two and Three were deemed untimely as Plaintiff failed to seek EEO counselling within 45 days of the event which led to the complaint. Particularly, Claims One and Two were also dismissed for lodging an impermissible collateral attack on another forum, namely, the DOL's OWCP and the OPM, respectively. Id. at pp. 6-7. Although the document advised that “[i]f you do not agree with the defined accepted issue(s), you must provide a written response specifying the nature of your disagreement within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this letter to the EEO Services Analyst . . ., ” Plaintiff failed to do so.

4

Lozada further alleges that multiple employees have been hired or transferred to the Vega Baja station after she filed her EEO complaint. See Docket No. 1 at ¶ 61. However, on June 18, 2020, she was informed by Edgar Quiles, Manager of the Loíza CCU Station that there are no possible reasonable accommodations for her “without violating the governing collective bargaining agreement.” Id. at ¶¶ 59-60.

Likewise, Plaintiff claims that she has never violated any procedures and Defendant has no disciplinary procedures against her. Id. at ¶ 62. In fact, she alleges to have an unblemished personnel record, her job performance was exemplary, and never was subject of unsatisfactory reports or negative evaluations from any of her immediate supervisors. Id. at ¶ 63. Instead she attributes her absences to her inability to work due to her injuries and to the Defendant's alleged inaction in providing her with an accommodation. Id. at ¶ 48.

Considering the aforementioned, on November 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant claim of disability, age discrimination and retaliation seeking compensatory damages, backpay, reinstatement, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff further claims to be a qualified disabled individual who was subject to discrimination by USPS failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. Id. at ¶¶ 70-71. According to Plaintiff, the USPS failed to accommodate her in retaliation for engaging in the protected conduct of requesting an accommodation and said action violates ADEA's age discrimination and retaliation provisions. Id. at ¶¶ 76-77, 80-81.

Although Plaintiff is also seeking relief for punitive damages, such claims must be disregarded, as punitive damages are not recoverable against the “government, government agency or political subdivision.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). More specifically, sister court for the

5

District of Maine has found that “the Postal Service is ‘part of the Government', [and] [] is entitled to § 1981a(b)(1) immunity.” Oakstone v. Postmaster Gen., 397 F.Supp.2d 48, 61 (D. Me. 2005).

The USPS now moves to dismiss Lozada's claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing the above-captioned claim and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” Docket No. 7 at p. 6. In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that she has presented a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted under ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. More specifically, “[s]ince the same standards apply to both the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, the court when analyzing the allegations, relies on precedent construing both statutes. The Court, therefore, must treat Plaintiff's claims as arising under the Rehabilitation Act.” Docket No. 12 at pp. 3-4 (citations omitted).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires plaintiffs to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his entitlement [with] more than labels and conclusions.” See Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.2011) (“in order to ‘show' an entitlement to relief a complaint must contain enough factual material ‘to raise a right to relief above...