Roberts v. Scalia
| Decision Date | 16 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00474 (CJN) |
| Parties | ERICA ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. EUGENE SCALIA, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Erica Roberts, a former Department of Labor employee, alleges that her supervisors discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of race, sex, and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. The Secretary moves to dismiss, contending that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Roberts's claim that the Department failed to accommodate her disability under the Rehabilitation Act and that the rest of the Complaint fails to state a claim. See generally Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. ("Mot."), ECF No. 8. The Court has jurisdiction but agrees that the Complaint fails to state a claim and dismisses it in its entirety.
Erica Roberts is an African-American woman who held a senior civil service position in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Administration and Management. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 22.1 She suffers from a number of debilitating medical conditions—a fact known to her supervisors as early as 2016. Id. ¶¶ 10, 13-17, 20. Roberts required several accommodations to enable her to perform her job's critical functions. Id. ¶¶ 22-27. She alleges that her supervisors were also aware of previous instances in which she had filed Equal Employment Opportunity complaints with the Department, though none of them had been the target of those complaints. Id. ¶¶ 11-12.
Roberts volunteered and was selected for a temporary assignment from the Labor Department to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which she began in October 2016. Id. ¶ 28. She excelled at the EPA, where she temporarily filled a Senior Executive Service-level position; the EPA even extended her assignment by a few months to continue to take advantage of her performance. Id. ¶ 29. While on detail, she communicated regularly with her supervisor at the Labor Department, Dennis Johnson. Id. ¶¶ 9, 20-21, 40. Roberts and Johnson did not get along well with one another; in the course of their communications during Roberts's absence, Roberts once informed Johnson that she found his behavior to be "offensive and belittling." Id. ¶ 21.
As Roberts prepared to return to the Labor Department, she proposed to Johnson that her position be permanently transferred from the Office of Administration and Management to the Office of Public Affairs. Id. ¶ 30. Johnson was initially warm to the idea but later informed Roberts that no transfer would occur until the confirmation of a new Assistant Secretary, who would need to sign off on the move. Id. Roberts also mentioned to Labor officials during thistime that her medical condition was worsening, providing supporting medical documentation to the appropriate personnel. Id. ¶ 22.
Soon after Roberts returned to the Labor Department, Johnson informed her on September 21, 2017, that rather than transferring her position to another office, he had initiated a process to modify her job description and duties. Id. ¶¶ 31-31. Roberts objected to the changes and again informed Johnson that she "found his communication belittling." Id. ¶ 33. Unable to convince Johnson to change course, Roberts elevated her concerns to the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Al Stewart. Id. ¶ 34. Fifteen days later, she went to human resources representative Shawn Hooper. Id. ¶ 35.
Hooper spoke with Johnson to get his side of the story on October 10. Id. ¶ 36. That same day, Johnson approached Roberts to harass her about going behind his back by contacting human resources; he expressed his intent to downgrade Roberts's annual performance evaluation by omitting any mention of her EPA detail and placing her in the "effective" performance category. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. Johnson told Roberts that if she had a problem with the evaluation, she could provide a written statement detailing her objections. Id. ¶ 42. Finally, Johnson mentioned that his own supervisor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations Edward Hugler, had signed off on the change to Roberts's position description and that it was going into effect immediately. Id. ¶ 43. Roberts submitted written objections to the evaluation on October 17, 2017, but she never received a response from either Johnson or Hugler. Id. ¶¶ 42, 45.
Formal notification of the position modification arrived three days later. Id. ¶ 43. According to the Complaint, the new job was a poor fit for Roberts. Her previous job "required . . . interactions with high-ranking officials from several Federal agencies," but the new work consisted of menial data entry that "required only limited strategic thinking with no thoughtleadership." Id. ¶ 52. Roberts claims that she did "not possess the required expert knowledge and mastery described in the new position classification," which was mostly administrative in nature and similar to work performed by employees at the GS-13 pay grade—unsuited for Roberts's status as a GS-15 employee. Id. ¶¶ 52, 54, 58. Finally, Roberts alleges that her health deteriorated further as a result of the stress and anxiety the ordeal induced, causing her to take medical leave to recover. Id. ¶ 59.
Roberts received a final copy of her performance evaluation on November 6, 2017. Id. ¶ 51. It was signed by both Johnson and Hugler and, as expected, rated Roberts as "effective," making no mention of her EPA detail. Id. ¶¶ 39, 51. Roberts alleges that Hugler "has a history of retaliating against 'trouble makers' and his refusal to adjust Plaintiff's performance was punishment for Plaintiff's prior [Equal Employment Opportunity] [c]omplaint." Id. ¶ 44.
The Complaint contains other allegations but does not tie them to particular dates or incidents. They include claims that (1) Johnson "made [unspecified] disparaging comments about [Roberts] that reflect stereotypes associated with African Americans, such as referring to her as combative and questioning his decisions," id. ¶ 47; (2) that "Johnson worked to have Plaintiff reassigned, without her knowledge, to supervise the only [other] African-American [employee] in the office in a less visible administrative position," though it's unclear whether that reassignment corresponds to the change in Roberts's position description or whether Johnson ever succeeded in the reassignment, id. ¶¶ 48-49; (3) that "Johnson also displayed disparate treatment towards all female employees" by assigning them to "position[s] of less visibility and prominence" and giving them less preferential treatment in the assignment of private office spaces, id. ¶¶ 50, 57; and (4) that "Johnson was deliberately an[d] unnecessarilyslow to approve and/or respond to several requests for [unspecified disability] accommodations," id. ¶ 61.
On December 20, 2017, Roberts contacted the Labor Department's Civil Rights Center to discuss the situation with an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor. Id. ¶ 60; see also Complaint Counseling History, ECF No. 8-2 at 2 ().2 She filed an informal complaint against Johnson and Hugler at that meeting. See generally Pl.'s Informal Compl. of Discrimination ("Informal Compl."), ECF No. 11-2 at 9-17. After receiving permission, Roberts filed a formal complaint on February 13. See generally Pl.'s Formal Compl. of Discrimination ("Formal Compl."), ECF No. 11-3 at 1-6. The Civil Rights Center transferred the complaint to the Department's Administrative Review Board after determining that it had an internal conflict of interest.3 See Samuel Rhames, Jr.'s Ltr. of Apr. 9, 2018, ECF No. 11-3 at 10.
The Administrative Review Board accepted the complaint on May 14, 2018. See Acting Chief Admin. Appeals Judge Joanne Royce's Ltr. of May 14, 2018, ECF No. 8-2 at 5-6. The Board conducted an investigation and then transmitted the results to Roberts on August 14, 2018. See Final Agency Decision of Nov. 27, 2018 ("Decision") at 1, ECF No. 8-2 at 8. The Boarddenied the complaint on November 27, 2018, concluding that Roberts had failed to prove any of her allegations. Id. at 2, ECF No. 8-2 at 9.
Roberts filed this suit on February 25, 2019.4 See generally Compl. Her Complaint alleges three counts under Title VII: (I) race discrimination, id. ¶¶ 62-65; (II) sex discrimination, id. ¶¶ 66-68; and (III) retaliation, id. ¶¶ 69-72. Roberts also alleges two counts under the Rehabilitation Act: (IV) disability discrimination, id. ¶¶ 73-76, and (V) retaliation, id. ¶¶ 77-80. The various discrimination claims assert theories of both disparate treatment and hostile work environment. See generally Compl. In addition to those theories of liability, Count IV also alleges a failure to provide reasonable accommodation for Roberts's disabilities. Id. ¶ 74. Roberts seeks lost pay and benefits, reassignment to an appropriate position within the Department, money damages, attorney fees, costs, and other equitable relief. See, e.g., id. ¶ 65.
The Secretary moves to dismiss on several grounds. See generally Mot. First, he argues that Roberts failed to exhaust administrative remedies on her claims under the Rehabilitation Act, which deprives the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction to review Counts IV and V. See id. at 10-12. In the course of briefing, Roberts conceded that she failed to exhaust remedies on her claim for Rehabilitation Act retaliation and withdrew Count V, though she continues to press Count IV. See Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Resp.") at 13, ECF No. 11. Second, the Secretary argues that Roberts failed to exhaust her remedies under Title VII as to any alleged discriminatory act, with the exception of her November 6, 2017, performance evaluation. See id.at 15-19. Third, the Secretary contends that the remaining arguments fail to...
To continue reading
Request your trial