Smith v. McCarthy
| Decision Date | 03 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action ELH-20-419 |
| Parties | AMANDA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. RYAN MCCARTHY, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
In this employment discrimination case, Amanda Smith, the self-represented plaintiff, has filed suit against Ryan McCarthy, then the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Army (“Army” or “Agency”). See ECF 1 (“Complaint”).[1] Smith served in the Army from 2000 to 2003, when she was honorably discharged with a “VA Disability rating ....” Id. ¶ 8. She worked for the Army as a civilian employee from 2005 until her termination in 2014. Id. ¶ 9; id. at 4.
Smith who suffers from various medical conditions, alleges that from 2012 to 2014 she experienced discrimination, a hostile work environment, denial of reasonable accommodation, and retaliation on the basis of her disability. At the time, she worked as a Program Analyst for the Army Test and Evaluation Command (“ATEC”) at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (“APG”) in Maryland. Id. ¶¶ 6 11.
The Complaint lodges five claims, all under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”). Smith also invokes the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. In particular, Smith alleges “Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act” (Count I) “Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act” (Count II); “Interference in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act” (Count III) Retaliation, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV); and “Violation of Confidentiality Provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, ” under 29 U.S.C. § 791(g) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(b)(1) et seq. (Count V). See ECF 1. Despite the caption of Count I, plaintiff also alleges hostile work environment. And, Count III and Count IV both assert retaliation claims.
The Army has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (5), and (6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). See ECF 10. The motion is supported by a memorandum (ECF 10-1) (collectively, the “Motion”) and multiple exhibits. See ECF 10-2; ECF 10-3. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. ECF 15. Defendant has replied. ECF 20.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motion. For the reasons that follow, I shall construe the Motion as a motion to dismiss. I shall grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.
As noted, Smith served in the Army from 2000 to 2003. ECF 1, ¶ 8. She was honorably discharged, following a diagnosis of anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). Id. Smith “was given a VA Disability rating [of] PTSD/Anxiety and Panic Disorder.” Id.
In 2005, Smith began working for the Army as a civilian employee. Id. ¶ 9. For many years, she enjoyed “a successful career with numerous promotions ....” Id.
On May 21, 2012, Smith began working as a Program Analyst for ATEC at APG. Id. ¶ 11. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff began to experience “anxiety at work in conjunction with interactions with her supervisor, ” Barbara Monger, who had been informed that plaintiff suffers from PTSD and anxiety. Id. at 1. In early June 2012, Smith “notified her second and third line supervisor that [Monger] was yelling at her in public and making false claims about [plaintiff's] time and attendance.” Id. ¶ 13. On June 29, 2012, Smith asked Monger not to yell at her or disparage her in front of her peers. Id. ¶ 14.
Smith alleges that she “experienced a severe panic attack at work” on July 2, 2012. Id. ¶ 15. According to plaintiff, Monger continued to mistreat her. Id. ¶ 16. On August 9, 2012, plaintiff complained to her third line supervisor, Sandra Weaver, and “asked to be reassigned” based on Monger's hostility and treatment. Id. ¶ 17. Weaver referred Smith and Monger to mediation with the ATEC Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Director. Id.
Smith and Monger participated in mediation on August 16 and 21, 2012, “hosted by the ATEC EEO Director.” Id. ¶ 18. Following the mediation and through “early 2013, ” Monger continued to show “extreme bias and unprofessionalism” toward Smith. Id. at 2; see id. ¶ 21. For example, plaintiff claims that Monger repeatedly and publicly made accusations to Smith “about [her] time and attendance, ” although plaintiff insists that she met all work standards. Id. ¶ 23.
According to plaintiff, on April 29, 2013, she arrived seven minutes late to work due to a traffic jam at the APG entrance gate, yet Monger “took the opportunity to belittle Ms. Smith and speak to her in a hostile, aggressive and loud manner.” Id. ¶ 30. Steve Shumate, a coworker who saw the traffic at the gate and also witnessed the interaction between plaintiff and Monger, “sent Ms. Smith an e-mail consoling her for how her supervisor treated her.” Id. Later that day, Smith and Monger met with Dave Glenn, Smith's second line supervisor. Id. ¶ 31. Monger allegedly “acted aggressively” towards Smith while they were in Glenn's office. Id. According to plaintiff, Monger's actions triggered plaintiff's second “massive panic attack, ” for which she immediately sought medical attention. Id.
On April 29, 2013, after plaintiff's medical visit, she met with the EEO Disability Program Manager, Kelly Keck, to “discuss her medical condition and options to resolve the situation.” Id. ¶ 32.[3] Also on that day, plaintiff “notified Ms. Sharlene Lyles, ATEC Management and Employee Relations Office . . . of the hostile work environment, treatment by her first line supervisor and severe panic attack she experienced at work.” Id. ¶ 33. Lyles contacted Glenn “about reassigning Ms. Smith.” Id. ¶ 33.
Following the incident of April 29, 2013, Smith submitted various requests to her supervisors and Human Resources representatives about a “reassignment or any accommodation to limit contact with her supervisor based on her medical condition.” Id. at 2; see id. ¶¶ 34, 37, 51. She asserts that her requests were generally denied or ignored. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37, 51.
Smith states that she complained to the APG's EEO Office on May 30, 2013. ECF 1, ¶ 64. She advised that she was “a disabled veteran with PTSD with Anxiety and Panic disorder” and had been “denied consideration for a reasonable accommodation and subject to workplace harassment and retaliation.” ECF 1 at 3.
On May 16, 2013, Smith's doctor signed a Declaration of Medical Emergency and a Certification of Serious Health Condition, which “identified anxiety and panic as the cause.” Id. ¶ 52. Smith submitted these documents to Glenn, along with an application to participate in the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program (“VLTP”). Id. ¶ 53. On May 21, 2013, Monger approved Smith's request. Id. ¶ 57. By June 9, 2013, plaintiff had exhausted her leave but was granted advanced sick leave until June 21, 2013. Id. ¶ 76.
According to plaintiff, her doctor stated that she could not return to work until the workplace was free of stressors. Id. ¶ 1. But, plaintiff alleges that ATEC insisted that she return to work under the same supervisor. Id. ¶¶ 1, 102.
Between April and September 2013, Smith “was scheduled to return to work on several occasions and there were positions to which [she] could have been reassigned that were not offered to [her].” Id. at 3. In particular, in September 2013, ATEC did not offer Smith a position because she “had not accepted the terms of a settlement.” Id. ¶ 89. However, from September 2013 through January 2014, ATEC approved Smith for leave without pay in two-week increments, based on medical documentation that Smith provided. Id. ¶ 91.
Smith filed a Formal Complaint of Discrimination with the EEO Office on July 12, 2013. See ECF 10-2 at 5-6 (“Claim 0193” or “First Claim”). As to the basis of discrimination, Smith checked the boxes for “Disability: Mental” and “Reprisal.” Id. at 5. Next to “Mental, ” plaintiff wrote “Anxiety Dis” and next to “Reprisal” she wrote “Jul 2012 EEO Mediation.” Id.
In Claim 0193, Smith alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, which “exacerbated her pre-existing service connected anxiety disorder about which the harassing supervisor was aware[.]” Id. She also claimed that the Agency failed to accommodate her request for reassignment. Id. As “reprisal, ” she claimed the agency delayed her access to the VLTP by making improper requests for records and also “sabotaged” her worker's compensation claim. Id.
On July 25, 2013, the EEO Office advised counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff's discrimination complaint would be submitted to an investigator for formal investigation of the following claims, ECF 10-2 at 8-9:
Smith submitted a “Reasonable Accommodation packet” to Keck on October 8, 2013. Id. ¶ 95. According to plaintiff, “the ATEC EEO Director requested Ms. Smith to revise her reasonable accommodation request” and she “submitted [the] documentation requested ....” I...
To continue reading
Request your trial