Sandler v. Blinken

• Decision Date: 29 September 2022
• Docket Number: 21-cv-2226 (DLF)
• Parties: SUSAN SANDLER, Plaintiff, v. ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

SUSAN SANDLER, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-2226 (DLF)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Susan Sandler brings this employment discrimination action against Antony Blinken in his official capacity as Secretary of State. Before the Court are the Secretary's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment, Dkt. 10, and Sandler's Motion for Discovery, Dkt. 12. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Secretary's motion part and deny it in part and deny Sandler's discovery motion as moot.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Sandler is a Jewish woman and a former employee of the Department of State who held the position of Deputy Director of the Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues (the Office). Am. Compl. at 1-2, ¶¶ 6, 15, Dkt. 8. Due to an August 2018 motorcycle accident, she suffers headaches, post-traumatic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar sacral strain syndrome, and pain

1

in her extremities. Id. ¶ 1. Her spouse also suffered from Parkinson's Disease and passed away in January 2020. Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 13.

Sandler's responsibilities as Deputy Director included communication with various national and international agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other public and private sector contacts. Id. ¶ 15. In response to an increased workload during a Department hiring freeze from 2017 to 2019, Sandler requested additional staffing from her then-supervisor, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, Thomas Yazdgerdi, but he denied her requests. Id. ¶¶ 16, 21, 23-24.

In March 2019, Sandler informed Yazdgerdi that she was taking leave to care for her spouse and to seek her own medical treatment, and ultimately she remained on leave until April 2020. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Sandler alleges that Yazdgerdi complained to human resources about her ability to perform her job, became “angry and upset” and “yelled” at her, complained to other Department employees about her medical appointments and absences, and joked that the Office was a “medical ward.” Id. ¶¶ 32-35, 46-48, 51. She further alleges that Yazdgerdi called her a “Jewish mother” on many occasions. Id. ¶¶ 52-55. Sandler met with human resources employees in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR), but her concerns were not addressed. Id. ¶¶ 37-38, 56-57. In August 2019, Cherrie Daniels replaced Yazdgerdi and allegedly also complained about Sandler's absences. Id. ¶¶ 17, 59, 64.

In addition to meeting with EUR Human Resources, Sandler contacted the Department's Disability/Reasonable Accommodations Division (Accommodations Division) in March 2019. Id. ¶ 40. She requested reasonable accommodations for her disabilities, including the ability to telework, an ergonomic chair, other ergonomic workstation modifications, and office lighting. Id. ¶¶ 40-42. She also sought a flexible work schedule. Id. at 2. The Department's Domestic Environment Health and Safety unit concluded that Sandler needed ergonomic equipment, id. ¶ 68,

2

but the equipment was not available through the time of Sandler's retirement in October 2020, id. ¶ 44. Sandler also alleges all her requests to telework for periods between August 2019 and April 2020 were denied. Id. ¶ 70. The Department's Accommodations Division denied her November 2019 request to telework because she needed to access classified material in-person at her office. Id. ¶ 74.

In January 2020, Sandler's paid leave balance ran out and she entered leave without pay status. Id. ¶¶ 86-87. During that time, she earned no income. Id. In March 2020, Sandler learned that the State Department had expanded access to telework due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Id. ¶ 91. She alleges this guidance had been “deliberately withheld” from her by her supervisor and the EUR Human Resources. Id. ¶ 94. The State Department also denied her Weather and Safety Leave, which permitted “employees to work from home, or be paid if they could not telework.” Id. ¶¶ 91, 99.

On or about April 6, 2020, Sandler also requested a “State Department-configured” laptop so she could access the Department IT system “more comfortably and efficiently” while teleworking. Id. ¶ 108. These laptops had “department-specific connection software” that would have eased Sandler's pain while working by making it less physically intensive for her to access work materials. Id. ¶ 109. Her request was denied. Id. ¶ 110.

Sandler was given permission to telework and ended her leave on April 13, 2020. Id. ¶ 100. Upon her return to work, Sandler discovered that her Department email account and “nearly 10 years of historical files,” including emails, had been deleted during her medical leave. Id. ¶ 103. Sandler alleges these files were deleted because no one notified the IT department that she was on leave and had not left the State Department. Id. ¶ 104. She was unable to fully restore her records. Id. ¶ 106.

3

From April 2020 until October 2020, Sandler continued to inquire about the status of her requests for accommodations. Id. ¶ 116. Ultimately, the Department installed an “electric desk ‘riser'” in August 2020. Id. On September 9, 2020, Sandler went to her office and found no other accommodations had been installed. Id. ¶ 117. As a result, Sandler “felt she had no choice but to retire,” which she did on October 31, 2020. Id. Sandler alleges that her “early retirement” was in effect a constructive discharge resulting in the loss of monetary benefits. Id. ¶ 118.

Finally, Sandler alleges that in October 2020 she learned that an “adverse personnel action” had been placed in her personnel file in February 2020, resulting in her not receiving a pay step increase. Id. ¶ 119. She further asserts that her second line supervisor would not provide her with an explanation for this action and suggested she “move on.” Id. ¶¶ 122-123.

Sandler filed a formal complaint of discrimination with the Department's Office of Civil Rights on November 27, 2019. Def.'s Partial Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, Dkt. 10-4.^[2] The Civil Rights Office issued a final agency decision on May 27, 2021. Id. Ex. C, Dkt. 10-6. Sandler later filed her initial complaint and served it in September 2021. Compl., Dkt. 1. The defendant timely filed a motion to dismiss on November 2, 2021. Def.'s Partial Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. 6. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on November 22, 2021. Am. Compl.

4

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move to dismiss an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Federal law empowers federal district courts to hear only certain kinds of cases, and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court must “assume the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint and construe the complaint liberally, granting plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged, and upon such facts determine [the] jurisdictional questions.” Am. Nat'l, 642 F.3d at 1139 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015). And the court “may undertake an independent investigation” that examines “facts developed in the record beyond the complaint” to “assure itself of its own subject matter jurisdiction.” Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). A court that lacks jurisdiction must dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain factual matter sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facially plausible claim is one that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This standard does not amount

5

to a specific probability requirement, but it does require “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”). A complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but alleging facts that are “merely consistent with a defendant's liability . . . stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Well-pleaded factual allegations are “entitled to [an] assumption of truth,” id. at 679, and the court construes the complaint “in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged,” Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). The assumption of truth does not apply, however, to a “legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted). An “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” is not credited; likewise, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Ultimately, “[determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.

Finally, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal “is a resolution on the merits and is ordinarily prejudicial.” ...