Tafazzoli v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: PWG-19-321,Case No.: PWG-19-1638 |
| Parties | SHEIBA TAFAZZOLI, Plaintiff, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Sheiba Tafazzoli alleges employment discrimination and retaliation claims against her former employer, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or the "Agency"), and its Chairman, Kristine L. Svinicki (collectively, "Defendants") in a consolidated complaint. First Am. Consol. Compl. ("Am. Compl."), ECF No. 11.1 Ms. Tafazzoli's suit includes ten causes of action brought under both the substantive and anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) et seq. ("Title VII"), and under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ("Rehabilitation Act"). Id. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 26. I have reviewed all the voluminous filings2 and find a hearing unnecessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the following reasons, I shall grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion, dismissing withprejudice Counts I, II, IV, VI, VIII, IX, and X. Counts III, V, and VII shall proceed to discovery. Ms. Tafazzoli's constructive discharge claim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The following facts are primarily allegations from Ms. Tafazzoli's complaint.3 At all times relevant to this litigation, Ms. Tafazzoli, a non-white deaf female, was employed by the NRC4 as an engineer in the Rockville, Maryland office. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-16. She began working for the NRC as a "general engineer" in July 2010 and was the only deaf female engineer at NRC, although there were about six deaf employees in the entire Agency. Id. at ¶¶ 48, 51-52.5 About the same time that NRC hired Ms. Tafazzoli, it also hired a deaf male nuclear engineer and a deaf male scientific or technical employee, both of whom reported to a different supervisor. Id. at ¶¶ 53-55. Ms. Tafazzoli was supervised by Patricia Silva from around 2014 to 2017. Id. at ¶¶ 55, 61.
Employees with hearing disabilities may be assigned an interpreter as a reasonable accommodation to assist them with communications needed to perform the functions of their jobs. Id. at ¶¶ 57-58. Ms. Tafazzoli alleges that the deaf male engineer and the deaf male technical employee were provided interpreters with no prohibitions, but that she was either prohibited fromrequesting an interpreter or her supervisors and Human Resources interfered with her ability to use interpreters. Id. at ¶ 56.
Prior to being assigned to work under Ms. Silva, Ms. Tafazzoli participated in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") hearing as a witness. Id. at ¶¶ 60, 65-66. She had also entered into a settlement agreement with the NRC in a separate EEOC matter in 2012, which resulted in her being moved into Ms. Silva's division, although she was initially supervised by Mark Lombard. Id. at ¶¶ 67-68. Ms. Tafazzoli alleges that Mr. Lombard "rarely" approved her for "qualifications meetings" and never assigned her a "qualifications journal."6 Id. at ¶ 68. She further alleges that once Ms. Silva became her supervisor, Ms. Silva refused to allow her to complete her qualifications by refusing to assign a mentor. Id. at ¶¶ 69-70.7 Similarly, Ms. Tafazzoli alleges that she was assigned menial technical duties and not assigned essential engineer duties although the essential duties were assigned to her non-deaf coworkers. Id. at ¶¶ 72-73, 75-76.8 Ms. Tafazzoli believes that Ms. Silva retaliated against her because she had issues with Ms. Tafazzoli's disability, reliance on reasonable accommodations, and prior participation in an EEOC case. Id. at ¶¶ 71, 74-75.
Ms. Tafazzoli also alleges that Ms. Silva gave her negative performance evaluations, although she had received excellent appraisals before 2016, and excluded her from meetings by intentionally not inviting interpreters knowing that Ms. Tafazzoli could not effectively participate without an interpreter. Id. at ¶¶ 82-87, 92-93. And, Ms. Silva took away Ms. Tafazzoli's pre-approved accommodations such as Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), split-work schedule, and teleworking, as well as denied reasonable requests for a personal qualified interpreter, note-takers, and a functional video-phone. Id. at ¶¶ 88-90; 121-124.9 Ms. Tafazzoli alleges that she was denied leave and training opportunities. Id. at ¶¶ 96-101. She adds that Ms. Silva repeatedly threatened disciplinary action and followed through on her unjustified discriminatory threats, such as issuing a 14-day suspension. Id. at ¶¶ 102-106.
In December 2016, Ms. Silva's supervisor, Mr. Lombard, proposed to suspend Ms. Tafazzoli for 14 days at Ms. Silva's request as a result of questionably reported credit hours, which Ms. Tafazzoli alleges were approved by a temporary supervisor. Pl.'s Resp. 17-19. The decision to suspend Ms. Tafazzoli became final on July 7, 2017. Id. at 19; Defs.' Mot. Ex. 25, ECF No. 26-27. On July 13, 2017, the Agency issued Ms. Tafazzoli a Cease and Desist Order regardingher alleged mistreatment of interpreters. Pl.'s Resp. 19-20. Ms. Tafazzoli denies ever mistreating or harassing interpreters. Id. at 20; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 127-129.
When Ms. Tafazzoli requested reasonable accommodations, she ran into roadblocks from Ms. Silva, Human Resources employees, and their colleagues. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 107-115; 119-127. In September 2016, Ms. Tafazzoli was temporarily assigned to a different position, but was reassigned back under Ms. Silva in 2017. Id. at ¶ 117.10 Ms. Tafazzoli alleges that although her temporary supervisor attempted to help with her reasonable accommodation requests, he ultimately denied her requests under direction of the Agency Attorney and his supervisor. Pl.'s Resp. 15-16. In August 2017, Ms. Tafazzoli was reassigned to report to the director of the division as a result of Ms. Taffazoli's filing of a sexual harassment complaint against Ms. Silva. Pl.'s Resp. 35; see also Defs.' Mot. Ex. 41 at 7-8, ECF No. 26-43.
Ms. Tafazzoli alleges that the Agency conspired to remove her, and made her position so unbearable that she was forced to resign. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 127-148. In particular, Ms. Tafazzoli describes events related to a non-operational camera that a coworker placed in her cubical as a joke, which resulted in a visit from two NRC security officers and led to her being placed on immediate administrative leave. Id. at ¶ 135; Pl.'s Resp. 20-23. One of the security officers reported that they were investigating a potential security violation, Ms. Tafazzoli became upset,and she pushed him into the wall. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 46, ECF No. 26-48. A Notice of Proposed Removal was issued on October 2, 2017 from Michael Layton, Director of Ms. Tafazzoli's division. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 49, ECF No. 26-51. It proposed her removal no earlier than 30 days from receipt (allowing for a response) and provided supporting details of her misconduct for the following charges: (1) failure to cooperate in an agency investigation; (2) inaccurate time and attendance reporting; (3) absent without leave (AWOL); (4) lack of candor; and (5) inappropriate physical contact with employee. Id.
Ms. Tafazzoli resigned effective October 17, 2017. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 136, 141; Defs.' Mot. Ex. 50, ECF No. 26-52.
Ms. Tafazzoli filed a series of discrimination and retaliation complaints with the Agency's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") office in 2016 and 2017. Pl.'s Resp. 2. Relevant to this litigation, she filed a formal discrimination complaint, pursuant to 29 CFR § 1614.106, with the Agency on December 30, 2016.11 Defs.' Mot. Ex. 1, ECF No. 26-3, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 42, ECF No. 28-3. In her complaint (NRC-16-26), she alleged denial of reasonable accommodations, disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 1. On March 16, 2017, the claims were accepted, in part, for investigation. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 2, ECF No. 26-4.
After resigning from the Agency, Ms. Tafazzoli attempted to amend her complaint in December 2017, adding a claim for constructive discharge. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 35, ECF No. 26-37; Defs.' Mot. Ex. 36, ECF No. 26-38. On December 18, 2017, the Agency responded to Ms. Tafazzoli's email requests for amendments to NRC-16-26, denied the request to amend, butcreated a new complaint, NRC-18-05. Defs.' Mot. Exs. 35-36. On January 25, 2018, the Agency sent a revised acceptance of the new complaint (NRC-18-05) acknowledging that Ms. Tafazzoli had elected to create a mixed case complaint,12 alleging constructive discharge as claim 2, which was treated as having been filed on January 5, 2018.13 Defs.' Mot. Ex. 36. The Agency issued a Final Agency Decision on claim 2 (the constructive discharge claim) on August 10, 2018, finding that Ms. Tafazzoli had not been constructively discharged. Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 2 at 43, ECF No. 27-2. The decision was sent to Ms. Tafazzoli by certified mail, which was delivered on August 17, 2018. Id. at 34.14 The Agency also sent a copy of the decision to Ms. Tafazzoli by Federal Express, which was delivered on August 14, 2018. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 54 at 3; Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 6. Ms. Tafazzoli appealed the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") on September 24, 2018. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 54, ECF No. 26-56; Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 6, ECF No. 27-6. The MSPB issued a decision on November 30, 2018, finding that the appeal was untimely. Id.15 Ms. Tafazzoli continues to assert that her appeal was timely. Pl.'s Resp. 3. On January 30, 2019, Ms. Tafazzoli formallywithdrew her requests for hearings in NRC-16-26 and 18-05 in favor of filing suit in district court. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 60, ECF No. 26-62. The hearing requests were dismissed without prejudice by the EEOC on January 31, 2019. Id.
On February 3, 2019, Ms. Tafazzoli filed a ten-count...
To continue reading
Request your trial