Lenkiewicz v. Castro

118 F.Supp.3d 255

Denise L. Lenkiewicz, Plaintiff,

v.Julian Castro, Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 13–0261 (RCL)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed July 31, 2015

Evan E. North, J. Wells Harrell, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Carl Ezekiel Ross, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, United States District Judge

In this case, plaintiff, Denise L. Lenkiewicz ("Lenkiewicz") brings a single claim of discrimination against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Before the Court are the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 56, the defendant's Opposition, ECF No. 67, and the plaintiff's Reply, ECF No. 68. Also before the Court are the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 57, the plaintiff's Opposition, ECF No. 64, and the defendant's Reply, ECF No. 72. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be DENIED. The defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Lenkiewicz was employed as a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") specialist at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") from October 2008 to November 2011. Answer ¶ 6, ECF No. 6. Lenkiewicz's responsibilities included "reviewing FOIA requests, assigning requests to a responding office, and redacting responsive documents." Complaint ¶ 7, ECF No. 1; Answer ¶ 7. Throughout her time at HUD, Lenkiewicz had physical impairments and submitted evidence of these physical impairments. Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Interrog. No. 10, ECF No. 56–1.

Lenkiewicz began submitting requests for accommodation in late 2009. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Interrog. No. 3, ECF No. 56–2. In August 2009, Lenkiewicz suffered a fracture of her right foot. Dr. Shammas Note (Aug. 6, 2009), ECF No. 56–28. Lenkiewicz "requested that a spare, unused printer be moved to her office so she would not have to walk multiple times per day to retrieve printed documents." Compl. ¶ 17. Lenkiewicz made a verbal request to Lewis, Lenkiewicz Dep. 111:25–112:1, ECF No. 56–18, and sent an e-mail to Deborah Rizzo, the head of HUD's Reasonable Accommodations Branch, E-mail from Denise Lenkiewicz to Deborah Rizzo (Sept. 11, 2009, 9:11 AM), ECF No. 56–21. Vicky Lewis, Lenkiewicz's supervisor, denied the request on December 7, 2009. Compl. ¶ 17. Instead, Lewis offered Lenkiewicz an alternative accommodation in the form of having a contractor pick up her documents from the printer. Lenkiewicz Dep. 113:12–114:5.

Soon after breaking her foot, Lenkiewicz made a request to Lewis for a parking space at or near the HUD headquarters. Lenkiewicz Dep. 100:13–100:25. Lewis did not grant or deny the request for a parking space and told Lenkiewicz to request one through HUD's Mail and Transportation Branch. Lenkiewicz Dep. 102:7–102:20; Lewis Dep. 74:15–18, ECF No. 56–16. The Mail and Transportation branch told Lenkiewicz that there weren't any parking spaces available. Lenkiewicz Dep. 103:6–103:16.

In 2009, Lenkiewicz further requested to be moved from the HUD office in which she was working because she was having breathing problems. Lenkiewicz Dep. 130:18–131:13. Lenkiewicz requested the transfer because "[there was] something in that office making [her] sick." Lenkiewicz Dep. 131:1–131:10. The relocation request was ignored. Pl's Resp. to Def.'s Interrog. No. 3.

In December 2009, Lenkiewicz also submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation in the form of telework. Lenkiewicz Dep. 108:21–109:12. Lenkiewicz submitted a Form 1000 with the assistance of Deborah Rizzo at the Accommodations Office. Id. HUD failed to respond to Lenkiewicz's request for a reasonable accommodation and misplaced the corresponding Form 1000. E-mail from Denise Lenkiewicz to Deborah Rizzo (Jan. 19, 2010 10:44 AM), ECF No. 56–21.

In December 2010, Lenkiewicz submitted another Form 1000 requesting a reasonable accommodation in the form of telework. Answer ¶ 26. In her request, Lenkiewicz cited her COPD with chronic bronchitis and debilitating arthritis. Accommodation Request for Persons with Disabilities for Denise Lenkiewicz (Dec. 22, 2010), ECF No. 56–22. In support of this request, Lenkiewicz submitted four documents and two releases permitting HUD to contact two of her physicians. Lenkiewicz Dep. 177:4–177:10. None of the documents discussed Lenkiewicz's alleged COPD. See Accommodation Documents, ECF No. 57–1. HUD submitted the request to Federal Occupational Health (FOH). Federal Occupational Health Submission (Jan. 5, 2011), ECF No. 57–1. Dr. James Allen evaluated Lenkiewicz's request and the aforementioned documents, along with a medical assessment submitted by one of Lenkiewicz's physicians, and determined that none of the documents or the assessment indicated a substantial limitation of a major life function. Allen Dep. 94:1–20; 153:10–157:18, ECF No. 56–15. Dr. Allen recommended that HUD deny Lenkiewicz's telework request. Allen Dep. 134:9–134:21. HUD denied Lenkiewicz's accommodations request, and the denial was backdated to the date of the initial request (December 22, 2010). Accommodation Request for Persons with Disabilities for Denise Lenkiewicz (Dec. 22, 2010). Lenkiewicz stopped reporting to work in May 2011. Lenkiewicz Dep. 165:18–24.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment shall be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A material fact is a fact that might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. "A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ).

In making a summary judgment determination, the court must believe the evidence of the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party" is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Instead, evidence must exist on which the jury could reasonably find for the non-moving party. Id. Rule 56(c)"mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

"A failure to exhaust administrative remedies for Rehabilitation Act claims is a jurisdictional defect, requiring dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1)." Mahoney v. Donovan, 824 F.Supp.2d 49, 58 (D.D.C.2011) (citing Spinelli v. Goss, 446 F.3d 159, 162 (D.C.Cir.2006) ). The Rehabilitation Act reserves "judicial review to employees ‘aggrieved by the final disposition’ of their administrative complaint, thereby mandating administrative exhaustion." Spinelli, 446 F.3d at 162 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)(1) ). The plaintiff bears the burden to plead and prove administrative exhaustion. Mahoney, 824 F.Supp.2d at 58.

Administrative exhaustion of a Rehabilitation Act claim begins with the employee's obligation to "consult a Counselor prior to filing a complaint in order to try to informally resolve the matter." 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a). "An aggrieved person must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory," and "[i]f the matter has not been resolved, the aggrieved person shall be informed in writing by the Counselor, not later than the thirtieth day after contacting the counselor, of the right to file a discrimination complaint." 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(d). Once the complainant receives the notice of right to file a complaint, the complainant has 15 days to file it. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(a)—(b). Finally, "[t]he agency is required to conduct an impartial and appropriate investigation of the complaint within 180 days of the filing of the complaint unless the parties agree in writing to extend the time period." 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)(2). "A complainant who has filed an individual complaint ... is authorized under ... the Rehabilitation Act to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court ... [w]ithin 90 days of receipt of the final action on an individual or class complaint if no appeal has been filed." 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(a).

When it comes to presentation of EEO complaints, "[t]he relevant inquiry is not whether the complainant has filed a detailed statement spelling out precisely his objections but whether the actions he did take were ‘adequate to put the [agency] on notice.’ " Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C.Cir.1985) (quoting President v. Vance, 627 F.2d 353, 362 (D.C.Cir.1980) ). Further, "notice may be adequate where a claim is brought to agency's attention ‘during the course of the administrative proceeding’ and ‘before it issued its final decision’ even if the argument or claim is not clearly set out in the complaint.' " Id. Actual knowledge of a discriminatory act is not necessary; constructive knowledge of a discriminatory...