Rajendran v. Wormuth
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 3:22-CV-00581 |
| Parties | RAJA RAJENDRAN, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary of the Army. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
In this matter, the plaintiff, Raja Rajendran (“Rajendran”), proceeding pro se, claims that he was subjected to employment discrimination based on his national origin. Rajendran brings claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Currently pending is a partial motion to dismiss the amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we grant in part and deny in part the pending partial motion to dismiss.
Rajendran began this action by filing a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Christine Wormuth (“the Secretary”), in her official capacity as the Secretary of the Army, the head of the agency for which Rajendran worked. See Wadhwa v. Secretary, Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 505 Fed.Appx. 209, 213 (3d Cir. 2012) (“First, the only proper defendant in a federal employee's Title VII action is the head of the appropriate agency.”). Rajendran filed this initial complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on January 3, 2022. (Doc. 1). After being served (Doc. 8), the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue. (Doc. 10). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to a stipulated order. (Doc. 13). Following the transfer, on April 13, 2022, Rajendran filed an amended complaint against the Secretary. (Doc. 17). On April 14, 2022, the Secretary filed an unopposed motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 19). The case was thereafter transferred to this court. (Doc. 22).
After being granted extensions of time to file a responsive pleading (Docs. 27, 33, 34), the Secretary filed the present partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 37) and brief in support (Doc. 38). Rajendran filed a brief in opposition (Doc. 42), after also being granted an extension of time to do so. (Doc. 41). The Secretary was then granted an extension of time (Doc. 45) to file her reply brief (Doc. 47), which she filed on September 20, 2022. Though not requesting-or being granted-leave to do so, Rajendran filed a sur-reply on September 21, 2022.[1]The following facts are taken from Rajendran's amended complaint.
Rajendran alleges that “[t]he defendant discriminated against [him] because of his national origin (Asian/Indian), in job assignments, wages, promotions, discipline and other terms [and] conditions and privileges of employment.” (Doc. 17 at 9). Rajendran began as a mechanical engineer, at pay scale GS-9, at Tobyhanna Army Depot on March 15, 2009. (Doc. 17 at 9).[2]Rajendran was qualified for the job, “with a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering,” “level 3 certification in SYSTEMS PLANNING RESEARCH DEV AND ENG[,]” and “a level 2 certification in Program Management[.]” Id.
In April 2009, Rajendran was assigned to report to Jeff Morman (“Morman”) as his first line supervisor, and to report to Mark Viola (“Viola”), as his second line supervisor. Id. During this first year of employment, Rajendran was rated “excellent” on his annual performance review, according to the complaint. Id. at 11. However, though he understood it to be procedurally required, Rajendran was not promoted to the pay scale of GS-11 at the end of his first year of employment. Id. at 14.
Rajendran further alleges that “several times” when he requested training his supervisors denied the requests. Id. According to Rajendran, he was “denied training that other similarly situated Caucasian employees were allowed to take.” Id. at 12. When Rajendran was given opportunities to participate in training, his supervisors “failed to make proper reservations and gave misleading instructions for training making it impossible for [Rajendran] to attend the training, and then accused [Rajendran] of missing training.” Id.
On August 18, 2010, Rajendran filed an EEOC complaint alleging discrimination based on national origin. Id. at 7, 10. His employer then began to retaliate against him for filing the complaint.
For example, on August 23, 2010, Rajendran asserts that he “forgot to sign-in.” Id. at 10. As a consequence, he was considered absent without leave (AWOL). Id. Rajendran was subsequently suspended from work for three days. Id. This suspension resulted from his brief term of absence without leave and his failure to attend a scheduled training. Id. Rajendran explains that he was unable to attend the training because the travel department “failed to reserve a rental car[,]” and Morman denied “every other mode of transportation requested[,]” such that Rajendran faced “stringent constraints requiring [him] to travel 555 miles on a Sunday from home in Michigan . . . in spite of explaining the difficulties.” Id. at 10-11. Rajendran asserts that the travel restrictions he faced were “not applied to other Caucasian employees.” Id. at 12. Rajendran compares his resulting three-day suspension to the treatment of another employee, who is Caucasian, who once forgot to sign in and was reminded to do so at noon without other consequences, and a second Caucasian employee, Larry Frable, who “had committed multiple severe offenses” and received less severe consequences than Rajendran's three-day suspension. Id. at 10. Rajendran further alleges that once, when discussing failure to sign in, Morman “stated that he would give to anyone an opportunity to explain[,] but he failed to give [Rajendran] an opportunity to explain his whereabouts.” Id.
Additionally, after filing the EEOC complaint, Rajendran received a negative performance review. Id. at 11. Though Rajendran asserts that he never had a “negative comment,” in his performance review “it was stated he could not get along with other people.” Id. Further, Rajendran alleges that “[o]ther Caucasian employees did not get along with other employees including one employee who swore at the Plaintiff and bragged about it and yet this incident was not escalated by Supervisor Morman nor any disciplinary action taken.” Id. at 12.
Rajendran also asserts that, as a result of retaliation, he was demoted. Id. at 13. Rajendran was downgraded from a mechanical engineer at pay scale GS-9 to an engineering technician at pay scale GS-7. Id. at 12. Rajendran alleges that the agency “did not follow the correct procedure” to demote him to this new position and pay scale. Id. at 14. Finally, according to the amended complaint, the Agency has failed to fully reimburse Rajendran for his travel expenses, also as a means of retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. Id. at 13.
On December 23, 2010, Rajendran filed an amendment to his EEOC complaint. Id. at 7. On January 20, 2011, the EEOC proceeding was closed when the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Id. at 12. But the Agency later breached the settlement agreement. Id. Accordingly, the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) ordered the Agency to provide Rajendran with two options to remedy this breach. Id. First, Rajendran could return the settlement payment already received, and, if he did so, the Agency would cancel the settlement agreement, reinstate the EEOC case, and offer Rajendran a status quo position. Id. Alternatively, Rajendran could choose to retain the settlement payment already received and require the Agency to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement and dismiss the EEOC case. Id. Rajendran chose the first option.
Because Rajendran chose to be reinstated to a status quo position, in September 2013 he was reinstated. Id. at 13. However, Rajendran asserts that the position he was offered, and accepted, was not a status quo position as it was in a different branch with a different position description and, though the position was officially at a pay scale of GS-9, he was “expected [ ] to perform at a GS[-]13 level, while [being compensated] at a GS[-]7 level[.]” Id. at 7, 13. Rajendran alleges that this discrepancy was retaliation and resulted in “constructive discharge forcing [him] to resign.” Id. at 7, 13. Rajendran thus requested the OFO to order compliance and submitted a non-compliance memo in 2013. Id. at 7, 14.
After the Agency concluded its investigation into the alleged discrimination that was the subject of the EEOC complaint, Rajendran requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Id. at 7. Prior to the hearings, Rajendran “amended with several additional complaints including a complaint that Agency failed to reinstate a status quo position per OFO's order.” Id. The hearings were held on April 18, 2016, April 19, 2016, May 19, 2016, and August 2, 2016. Id. at 8. The ALJ issued a decision on July 28, 2020, finding no discrimination or retaliation. Id. at 8. The ALJ “did not render a verdict on the noncompliance on the OFO order issue.” Id.
Rajendran appealed the ALJ's decision to the EEOC, which denied the appeal on May 25, 2021. Id. On June 23, 2021, Rajendran filed a reconsideration request, which the EEOC denied on October 12, 2021. Id. On November 17, 2021, Rajendran filed a second reconsideration request, which the EEOC also denied. Id. Rajendran then filed the instant complaint on January 3, 2022. Id.
Rajendran sets out five counts in his complaint. Id. Rajendran, however, is less than clear which claims he is bringing under the PHRA, and which claims he is bringing under Title VII. Instead, on the form complaint block that asked under which statute the action is...
To continue reading
Request your trial