Case Law Allen-Brown v. Dist. of Columbia

Allen-Brown v. Dist. of Columbia

Document Cited Authorities (37) Cited in (19) Related

Kathy Dianne Bailey, Bailey Law, PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Sarah L. Knapp, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge

Sashay Allen-Brown is a police officer with the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department. Allen-Brown was lactating when she returned from maternity leave in 2011 and, accordingly, needed to express breast milk during work hours. Upon her return, she sought a temporary assignment that would not require her to go on beat patrol because an officer on patrol duty must wear a bullet-proof vest that can interfere with lactation by causing pain and clogged milk ducts. Allen-Brown also complained to her supervisors that the designated location for expressing milk at the police station was unclean. She alleges that the District of Columbia discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the D.C. Human Rights Act, when it placed her on patrol duty and denied her request for a limited-duty accommodation shortly after she complained about the lactation facility. She also alleges that the District violated the D.C. Human Rights Act's requirement that employers take affirmative steps to accommodate lactating women.

The case is presently before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The District of Columbia moves for summary judgment as to the discrimination and retaliation claims. Dkt. 26. Allen-Brown cross-moves for summary judgment as to her D.C.-law accommodation claim. Dkt. 28. For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES both motions.

I. BACKGROUND

Sashay Allen-Brown began working for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) as a patrol officer in December 2006. Compl. ¶¶ 6–7. On March 7, 2011, she gave birth to a son. Dkt. 27-9 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 27). When Allen-Brown returned to duty after her maternity leave, she was still breastfeeding and thus needed to express milk at work two or three times a day. Dkt. 27-1 at 2; Dkt. 27-3 at 2–3 (Pl.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 6, 12); Dkt. 27-8 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 19). It is undisputed that Allen-Brown was initially placed on limited-duty status upon her return to work. Dkt. 27-1 at 2. According to the District of Columbia, this was in accordance with its policy that a new mother is automatically granted limited duty for six weeks following her resumption of work. Dkt. 26-1 at 3; Dkt. 26-2 at 1–2 (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 3, 14); Dkt. 26-4 at 1 (policy statement).

When Allen-Brown first returned to work, she resumed a prior detail to the ID & Records Office. Dkt. 27-9 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 27); Dkt. 27-8 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 19); Dkt. 28-4 at 3. At that assignment, Allen-Brown was able to use a lactation room to express milk without any issues. Dkt. 27-1 at 2. After a short period of time, however, Allen-Brown requested that she be returned to “full duty status” in the Second District. Dkt. 28-12 at 3–4 (Pl.'s Dep. 20–21). She hoped to be assigned to the night shift; her husband worked during the day, and she wanted to avoid the need for outside help with childcare by working nights. Id. ; Dkt. 27-13 (Pl.'s Dep. 24); Dkt. 28-12 at 9 (Pl.'s Dep. 43).

Allen-Brown's request to return to the Second District was granted, and she was sent to the Police Academy for one to two weeks of “in-service training” and gun-range practice in preparation for her return to full-duty status. Dkt. 27-1 at 2; Dkt. 28-12 at 3–4 (Pl.'s Dep. 20–21). At the Academy, Allen-Brown used a designated lactation room to express milk once or twice per day. Dkt. 28-12 at 5–6 (Pl.'s Dep. 22–23). The designated room was a conference room with a clear window in each of the two doors to the room. Id . One window had paper attached to it in an effort to cover it up, while the other window was in a door to a sergeant's office. Id. The sergeant's door had a coat rack in front of it in an attempt to block the window; no paper was used. Id. at 6 (Pl.'s Dep. 23). Allen-Brown was uncomfortable with the set-up because one could still see through both of the windows. Id. She mentioned the situation to the sergeant, who responded that she would make sure no one would come in while [Allen-Brown] was lactating.” Id.

Allen-Brown reported for duty in the Second District on May 2, 2011. Dkt. 27-10 at 4 (Pl.'s Dep. 25). She was assigned to the “midnight” shift, as she had hoped; she reported for roll call around 9:50 p.m. and got off work around 6 or 7 a.m. Id. For the next several weeks, every evening at roll call Allen-Brown was assigned to “station duty.” Dkt. 27-20 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 32). Station duty is also known as “inside duty” and does not require the officer to wear a bullet-proof vest. Dkt. 1-8 at 9 (MPD General Order 110.11); Dkt. 27-1 at 2; Dkt. 27-13 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 24). By contrast, under the District's uniform policy, absent a medical waiver, officers with a patrol-duty assignment outside of the station must wear a bullet-proof vest, which the MPD General Order on Uniforms and Equipment refers to as “soft-body armor.” Dkt. 1-8 at 9 (MPD General Order 110.11).

At the time she returned to the Second District, Allen-Brown was still breastfeeding her infant, then about two months old, and thus continued to need to express milk at work. Dkt. 27-1 at 2. At the Second District, the designated lactation room was a lounge area inside the women's restroom; a sign that said “lactating” was simply placed on the women's restroom door. Dkt. 28-12 at 7 (Pl.'s Dep. 29). Allen-Brown was concerned about the location and cleanliness of the lounge because “everyone used it. Officers went there to take rest breaks or take naps ... during their break[s] .... [P]eople do [their] hair there, ... it was an all-purpose room basically.” Id. at 7–8 (Pl.'s Dep. 29–30).1 Allen-Brown made several oral complaints about the facilities to “various officials,” including Lieutenant Alesia Wheeler-Moore. Id. ; see also Dkt. 27-19 at 5 (Pl.'s Dep. 68). When nothing was done in response, she decided to put her complaint in writing. Dkt. 28-12 at 8 (Pl.'s Dep. 30). On June 9, 2011, Allen-Brown emailed Lieutenant Wheeler-Moore and asked whom to contact about the cleanliness of the lactation room. Dkt. 1-7 at 2. She stated that [t]he floor needs to be swept and mopped” and that [o]n several occasion[s][,] ... there was hair all over the table and floor.” Id. She did not receive a response until June 22, 2011. Id. ; Dkt. 27-18 at 4 (Pl.'s Dep. 68).

Meanwhile, on June 12, 2011, Allen-Brown wrote to the Commander of the Second District through her chain of command (an unidentified lieutenant and a captain) and requested to be “detailed to the station.” Dkt. 1-9 at 2. Although it is unclear from the record what precipitated this request, it appears that Allen-Brown sought to clarify that she would be assigned to inside duty at the station until her son, then fourteen weeks old, was one year old. She explained that she was “breast[ ]feeding and lactating” and that she was “unable to wear [her] vest” because it was “extremely painful and could clog [her] ducts and slow down the production of [her] milk supply.” Id. She further explained that she planned to breastfeed her son until he was one year old. Id. Allen-Brown's decision to breastfeed for the first year of her son's life was consistent with the District's “Lactating Accommodation Policy,” promulgated in January 2011, which stated, among other things, that [i]t is the policy of the MPD to provide reasonable break time during work hours for a member to express breast milk for her nursing child for one (1) year after the child's birth.” Dkt. 28-7 at 2. The Commander for the Second District denied Allen-Brown's request for an accommodation. Dkt. 1-9 at 2. Although the record does not reflect when the Commander made this decision, the Captain for the Second District apparently forwarded Allen-Brown's request to the Commander on June 15, 2011. Id. In any event, Allen-Brown continued to be assigned to station duty on an ad hoc basis until June 23. Dkt. 27-20 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 32).

On June 22, 2011, Wheeler-Moore forwarded Allen-Brown's email about the cleanliness of the designated lactation area to Sergeant Wanda Fisher, and Fisher responded to Allen-Brown that same morning. Dkt. 1-7 at 2. Fisher stated that Allen-Brown needed to comply with the “process” for using the lactation room, including “advis[ing] [her] of the dates and time[s] that [Allen-Brown] ha[d] previously used the lactating room” and “sign[ing] in and out on the Lactation Request Form and Book” in the future. Id. According to Fisher, this would “provide[ ] [Allen-Brown] the opportunity to have privacy while utilizing this room and give [Fisher] an idea of how many times it is being used and how often it should be cleaned.” Id. She also stated that [t]he cleanliness of the room will be taken care of immediately” and that Allen-Brown should “also feel free to let [her] know about issues of cleanliness” as they arose. Id. According to Allen-Brown, however, nothing about the condition of the room changed after Fisher responded to the email. Dkt. 27-19 at 5 (Pl.'s Dep. 68).

Through June 22, “every sergeant that conducted roll call [at the Second District] [had] placed [Allen-Brown] in the station because [she] was lactating.” Dkt. 27-20 at 3 (Pl.'s Dep. 32). But when Allen-Brown reported for roll call for the June 22–23 night shift—her first shift following Fisher's reply to her email—the sergeant on duty, Sergeant Phillips, assigned her to patrol duty. Id. Allen-Brown responded that she worked inside the station and could not go outside on patrol because she was lactating and...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2019
Marrero v. Misey Rest., Inc.
"...is a medical condition related to pregnancy, and therefore covered under Title VII); Allen-Brown v. D.C., No. CV 13-1341 (RDM), 174 F.Supp.3d 463, 478, 2016 WL 1273176, at *11 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2016) (holding that "[a]lthough the D.C. Circuit has yet to address this question, the Court finds..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2017
Nunnally v. Dist. of Columbia
"...a retaliat[ion] claim are the same under [the] DCHRA as under the federal employment discrimination laws." Allen–Brown v. District of Columbia , 174 F.Supp.3d 463, 481 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[F]ederal case law addressing questions arising in Title VII cases is ap..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2016
Giovanetti v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Civil Action No. 13-1807 (RBW)
"... ... Civil Action No. 13-1807 (RBW) United States District Court, District of Columbia. Signed March 31, 2016 174 F.Supp.3d 456 John C. Giovanetti, Butner, NC, pro se. Rhonda Lisa ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2018
Clark v. City of Tucson
"...Discrimination because of status as a lactating mother qualifies as sex discrimination under the PDA. See e.g., Allen-Brown v. D.C., 174 F. Supp. 3d 463, 478 (D.D.C. 2016). For Title VII sex discrimination, Plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie case; alleging (1) she is a member of..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Belov v. World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
"...(collecting cases). The EEOC, moreover, “has also adopted the position that lactation is protected by the PDA in its enforcement guidance.” Id. at 479 (citing EEOC Guidance No. Pregnancy and Related Issues (June 25, 2015), 2015 WL 4162723). In light of those persuasive authorities - as well..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 41 Núm. 1, September 2021 – 2021
MENSTRUATION DISCRIMINATION AND THE PROBLEM OF SHADOW PRECEDENTS.
"...(5th Cir. 2013). (23) Id. at 428. (24) Id. (25) See, e.g., Hicks v. Tuscaloosa, 870 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2017); Allen-Brown v. D.C., 174 F. Supp. 3d 463 (D.D.C. (26) See, e.g., Delva v. Continental Grp., Inc. 96 So.3d 956 (Fla. App. 2012). (27) Derungs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 374 F.3d 428 ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 41 Núm. 1, September 2021 – 2021
MENSTRUATION DISCRIMINATION AND THE PROBLEM OF SHADOW PRECEDENTS.
"...(5th Cir. 2013). (23) Id. at 428. (24) Id. (25) See, e.g., Hicks v. Tuscaloosa, 870 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2017); Allen-Brown v. D.C., 174 F. Supp. 3d 463 (D.D.C. (26) See, e.g., Delva v. Continental Grp., Inc. 96 So.3d 956 (Fla. App. 2012). (27) Derungs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 374 F.3d 428 ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2019
Marrero v. Misey Rest., Inc.
"...is a medical condition related to pregnancy, and therefore covered under Title VII); Allen-Brown v. D.C., No. CV 13-1341 (RDM), 174 F.Supp.3d 463, 478, 2016 WL 1273176, at *11 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2016) (holding that "[a]lthough the D.C. Circuit has yet to address this question, the Court finds..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2017
Nunnally v. Dist. of Columbia
"...a retaliat[ion] claim are the same under [the] DCHRA as under the federal employment discrimination laws." Allen–Brown v. District of Columbia , 174 F.Supp.3d 463, 481 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[F]ederal case law addressing questions arising in Title VII cases is ap..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2016
Giovanetti v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Civil Action No. 13-1807 (RBW)
"... ... Civil Action No. 13-1807 (RBW) United States District Court, District of Columbia. Signed March 31, 2016 174 F.Supp.3d 456 John C. Giovanetti, Butner, NC, pro se. Rhonda Lisa ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2018
Clark v. City of Tucson
"...Discrimination because of status as a lactating mother qualifies as sex discrimination under the PDA. See e.g., Allen-Brown v. D.C., 174 F. Supp. 3d 463, 478 (D.D.C. 2016). For Title VII sex discrimination, Plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie case; alleging (1) she is a member of..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Belov v. World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
"...(collecting cases). The EEOC, moreover, “has also adopted the position that lactation is protected by the PDA in its enforcement guidance.” Id. at 479 (citing EEOC Guidance No. Pregnancy and Related Issues (June 25, 2015), 2015 WL 4162723). In light of those persuasive authorities - as well..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex