Johnson v. Louis Dejoy

1

EBONY T. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-2342 (LLA)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 17, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LOREN L. ALIKHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Ebony T. Johnson brings this action against Postmaster General of the United States Louis DeJoy and the United States Postal Service (collectively, “USPS”) alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C § 701 et seq., and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. ECF No. 1. The USPS moves to dismiss or, in the alternative for summary judgment. ECF No. 13. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant the USPS's motion to dismiss.

I. Factual Background

For purposes of resolving the USPS's motion to dismiss, the court accepts Ms. Johnson's well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Ms. Johnson has worked at the USPS since 2005 and became a full-time mail carrier in 2006. ECF No. 1 ¶ 7. In November 2006, she was “wrongfully accused of hitting a customer with her mail truck and leaving the scene.” Id. ¶ 8. She “was sent home for about eight months before being offered her job back,” and she was not “paid for the pain suffered” as a result of the incident. Id. In December 2007, while two months pregnant, Ms. Johnson “suffered an on-the-job injury when she fell down a flight of stairs while delivering mail.” Id. She injured her lower back and tailbone, requiring medical treatment. Id. ¶ 9. “Tragically, the fall also resulted in the loss of [her] pregnancy.” Id. ¶ 10. Because of the accident, Ms. Johnson suffered from “a severely depressed mood, anxiety, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress.” Id. ¶ 11. She was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Id. “Due to her physical injuries and the onset of her psychological symptoms, [Ms. Johnson] sought leave under the FMLA, but was denied.” Id. ¶ 12.

In March 2019, Ms. Johnson “sustained an on-the-job injury.” Id. ¶ 13. She took leave approved by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) and returned to work in January 2020. Id. ¶¶ 13-14; see Pueschel v. Chao, 357 F.Supp.3d 18, 24 (D.D.C. 2018), aff'd, 955 F.3d 163 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq., governs OWCP benefits). After returning to work, Ms. Johnson allegedly “notif[ied] supervisors and management of her disabilities and request[ed] reasonable accommodations.” Id. ¶ 15. Instead, the USPS “reacted by creating a hostile work environment and retaliating against” her. Id. ¶ 16. Ms. Johnson's supervisor, Ebbonni Clark, “refus[ed] to sign and return [her] leave slips and improperly cod[ed] her OWCP-approved leave as Absent-Without-Leave (‘AWOL') and Leave Without Pay (‘LWOP').” Id. ¶ 18. This improper coding “resulted in a loss of pay and benefits.” Id. ¶ 19.

In February 2020, Ms. Johnson contacted an equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) counselor within the USPS to report discrimination and retaliation. Id. ¶ 20. Soon thereafter, she received and signed an Offer of Modified Assignment but “indicated on the form that she was doing so ‘under protest.'” Id. The offer changed Ms. Johnson's start time from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., which interfered with her childcare responsibilities. Id. ¶ 21.

As a result of the USPS's harassment and retaliation, Ms. Johnson's mental health declined. Id. ¶ 22. “[H]er psychiatric care provider recommended that she take a short leave of absence,” and Ms. Johnson “provided management with documentation of her doctor's instructions.” Id. Ms. Johnson alleges that she “was not advised of her rights under the FMLA” and that “management's improper coding of [her] OWCP leave forced her to use her annual leave.” Id. ¶¶ 23-24.

In May 2020, Ms. Johnson and the USPS reached a settlement agreement. Id. ¶ 25. The agreement “provided that [Ms. Johnson]'s supervisor would sign and return [her] leave slips and would correct the leave that had been improperly recorded.” Id. ¶ 26. Ms. Johnson returned to work the following month. Id. ¶ 27. Just a few days after her return, she suffered another on-the-job injury: she was chased by a dog, fell, and “injured her right wrist and shoulder, lower back, and both knees.” Id. The next day, Ms. Clark “instructed [Ms. Johnson] to deliver her route as usual.” Id. ¶ 32. Ms. Johnson informed Ms. Clark that she would be unable to do so because of her injuries. Id. ¶ 33. “Later that day, [Ms. Johnson] submitted a Duty Status Report detailing her injuries and stating that she could continue working under restrictions ordered by her doctor.” Id. ¶ 34. Those restrictions included: “no lifting/carrying, climbing, kneeling, bending/stooping, twisting, pulling/pushing or driving a vehicle; standing, walking, reaching above the shoulders 2 hours intermittently; and sitting, simple grasping, or fine manipulation 8 hours continuously.” Id. Ms. Clark indicated that there was no available work fitting those restrictions. Id. ¶ 35.

Ms. Johnson also requested traumatic injury continuation of pay (“COP”) for her injuries through the OWCP, but Ms. Clark failed to report the injuries to the USPS's Human Resources Department. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. “The [COP] request was only submitted after the Union Steward was forced to intervene,” and ultimately it took over a month for the request to be submitted. Id. ¶ 30.

The OWCP accepted Ms. Johnson's COP request in July 2020, but Ms. Clark again improperly coded her absences as LWOP or annual leave. Id. ¶ 36.

In December 2020, Human Resources informed Ms. Johnson that her health benefits had been terminated on July 31, 2020 “because she had not remained in a pay and duty status for eight pay periods following the period of leave taken in 2019.” Id. ¶ 37. Ms. Johnson alleges that her benefits were terminated because Ms. Clark miscoded her OWCP leave as LWOP and failed to correct it. Id. ¶ 38. Further, Ms. Johnson was “prevented from returning to work, as [her] supervisor refused to assign work within her medical restrictions.” Id. ¶ 39.

In February 2021, Ms. Johnson filed another EEO complaint “due to her supervisor's ongoing failure to correct the coding of [her] leave and additional miscoding of leave taken following [her] June 2020 injuries.” Id. ¶ 40. Later that month, Ms. Johnson's supervisor emailed a nearby USPS facility, inquiring about light-duty job openings, as Ms. Johnson was still not working. Id. That email incorrectly stated Ms. Johnson's medical restrictions. Id.

In March 2021, the OWCP approved Ms. Johnson's request for “compensation for the period of January 30, 2021 through March 12, 2021, citing USPS's failure to provide [Ms. Johnson] with a written job offer.” Id. ¶ 41. The OWCP instructed the USPS to provide Ms. Johnson with a job offer that complied with her medical restrictions. Id.

At some point between May and July 2021, Ms. Johnson returned to work in a new position. See id. ¶ 44. On July 7, 2021, Ms. Johnson “requested a copy of an ‘Employee Everything Report' which would allow her to view records of her leave, how her leave was coded, pay, and benefits.” Id. ¶ 47. The USPS refused to provide the report. Id.

On several occasions in July 2021, the USPS required Ms. Johnson to perform work in violation of her medical restrictions. Id. ¶ 45. For example, USPS employee Milan Smith required Ms. Johnson to “lift and move heavy items” and stated that she had to perform work violating her restrictions “until management could prepare [Ms. Johnson] for her job and provide her the resources she needed.” Id. During several periods between July and October 2021, Mr. Smith failed to provide login credentials and training Ms. Johnson needed to do her job. Id. ¶ 46. Mr. Smith also “placed [Ms. Johnson] on the wrong pay schedule, which interfered with her pay,” and “made disrespectful, sexually harassing comments to [Ms. Johnson].” Id. ¶¶ 48-49.

In August 2021, Ms. Clark again improperly recorded Ms. Johnson's absences, “cod[ing] [her] as AWOL on August 18 and as LWOP on August 17 and August 19,” and she continued to refuse Ms. Johnson's leave slips. Id. ¶ 49. “On one occasion, Ms. Clark intercepted leave slips and medical documentation [Ms. Johnson] sent by mail to Ms. Yamile Diaz, a manager.” Id. ¶ 50.

Ms. Johnson further alleges that Ms. Clark: (1) “stated that EEO should stop investigating and ‘find ways to make [Ms. Johnson] come to work,'” (2) “characterize[d] [Ms. Johnson]'s disabilities as a ‘lifestyle' that is incompatible with [her] job duties,” (3) said that the EEO “should encourage [Ms. Johnson] to bid to a different station, seek new employment, or resign,” and (4) averred that “[Ms. Johnson] is no one special that I will waste my time or energy to worry, think, or talk about.” Id. ¶ 43.

II. Procedural History

Ms Johnson filed this suit on August 11, 2023, alleging disparate treatment (Count I), failure to accommodate (Count II), hostile work environment (Count III), and retaliation (Count IV), all in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. ¶¶ 52-80. She further alleges that the USPS violated the FMLA by interfering with her ability to take leave (Count V) and retaliating against her (Count VI). Id. ¶¶ 81-100. Ms. Johnson seeks compensatory and punitive damages, front and back pay, and attorney's fees and costs. Id., Prayer for Relief, (a)-(d). The USPS filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF No. 13. The agency argues that Ms. Johnson's Rehabilitation Act claims fail because Ms. Johnson (1) did not exhaust her administrative remedies as to certain claims, (2) does not plausibly allege that she has a disability or is a “qualified...