McLane v. Haaland

1

SHAWN MARIE MCLANE, Plaintiff, v. DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, Defendant.

No. 12-cv-1397 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 15, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge

Plaintiff Shawn Marie McLane moves for reconsideration of the Court's June 2021 Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order granting Defendant Deb Haaland's motion for partial summary judgment. In that ruling, the Court affirmed the decision of a Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge upholding McLane's removal from her job with the National Park Service (“NPS”) and concluded the termination did not violate the civil service protections codified in Title V of the Code of Federal Regulations. McLane now contends that reconsideration of this ruling is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because, in her view, the Court misapprehended both the factual record and the law governing her Title V claim. In the alternative, she asks the Court to certify its order under either Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for immediate appeal. For the reasons below, the Court will deny both requests.

I. Background

Because the Court assumes familiarity with its summary judgment opinion, it only briefly recounts the facts necessary for understanding the current motion.

McLane worked as a Maintenance Office Assistant at NPS's Harpers Ferry National Historical Park until October 2010, when she suffered a severe assault at the hands of a coworker with whom she was in a personal relationship. See A.R Vol. 1 at 106, 108, ECF No. 86-1.^[1] In the aftermath of the attack, McLane sought treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression and took leave from her job. See id. at 108, 110. In January 2011, as she prepared to return to work, McLane requested a new placement more than ten miles from her current workplace and her attacker's home, claiming that returning to work at Harpers Ferry risked worsening her PTSD symptoms. See Ex 1. to Pl.'s Summ. J. Opp'n & Reply at 4, ECF No. 97-3 (email of Jan. 18, 2011, explaining that return to Harpers Ferry would bring “reminder” of past threats, increasing symptoms and preventing her from working); id. at 1-2, 10 (repeatedly asking supervisor for relocation or transfer, including to temporary position near the Gulf of Mexico). In other communications with NPS's Human Resources department, McLane suggested that placement in a locked building at Harpers Ferry might also be an appropriate accommodation. See A.R. Vol. 1 at 110 (email of Jan. 27, 2011); see also id. at 107 (email of Feb. 10, 2011, raising same possibility). However, even after proposing a return to her old job, McLane submitted a letter from her treating physician reiterating her need for relocation. See id. at 108- 09 (Jan. 28, 2011, doctor's letter).

In response, NPS found two open positions elsewhere in the Capital Region, and helped McLane secure employment at one-the National Mall and Memorial Park (“NAMA”) in Washington, D.C. See A.R. Vol. 5 at 244-45, ECF No. 86-5. Despite expressing concerns that the commute to NAMA would make it difficult to “attend[] necessary medical appointments and counseling, ” McLane accepted the position on February 10, 2011. Ex 1. to Pl. Summ. J. Opp'n & Reply at 14; A.R. Vol. 1 at 107.

Yet, McLane did not show up to work on her first day, February 22, 2011. She instead sent an email to her new supervisor, informing him that she was “unable to fulfill [her] obligations” at NAMA due to the “hardships” the long and expensive commute “would impose.” A.R. Vol. 1 at 95-96. In that email, McLane did not mention her PTSD or depression, nor any need to attend medical appointments or counseling. See id. Over the next several months, McLane sporadically responded to the agency's repeated requests for her to return to work. See, e.g., id. at 93-94 (Feb. 22 return to work letter); id. at 89-92 (Mar. 1, 2011, emails from McLane to supervisor and HR); id. at 69-81 (April 1-3 emails from McLane to HR); id. at 86 (May 4, 2011, return to work email). Only once that spring did McLane reiterate her complaint that the new position at NAMA would interfere with her medical and mental health treatment. See id. at 91 (raising concern in March 1, 2011, email to NAMA supervisor). In a series of emails to NPS HR Specialist Marlene Doty in early April, McLane suggested that NPS “pressure[d]” her to accept a “non-local reassignment, ” and that she had in fact “wanted to return to [her] job at Harpers Ferry.” Id. at 71-72. She acknowledged, however, that “others[] outside the agency”- presumably including her doctor-“thought it was a bad idea.” Id. at 72. And she promptly asked Doty to disregard and “delete” the emails where she mentioned wanting to return to Harpers Ferry. Id. at 69-70.

The following month, on May 19, 2011, the agency terminated McLane from her position at NAMA based on her unapproved absence and failure to respond to two return-to-work letters. See id. at 82-84. Two weeks later, McLane emailed Doty about her termination, explaining that she did not wish to resign. See id. at 67. In those emails, McLane asked why the agency had “den[ied]” her “requests for reasonable accommodations, ” including to return to work in a locked building at Harpers Ferry. Id. at 66.

McLane challenged her termination through an appeal to the Merits System Protection Board (“MSPB”). After a complex procedural history, an Administrative Judge (“AJ”) found the MSPB lacked jurisdiction over McLane's claim because she had voluntarily abandoned her position. See MSPB Op. at 23, ECF No. 53-1; see also MSJ Op. at 5-8 (describing procedural history). The Court upheld that determination in its partial summary judgment order.

II. Analysis

The Court has carefully considered the plaintiff's motion and finds that it does not meet the standard for either reconsideration under Rule 54(b) or certification for immediate appeal under any relevant standard. The Court does so largely for the reasons laid out in its partial summary judgment opinion. However, the Court will briefly address the merits of two arguments McLane raises. The first concerns whether McLane ever expressed an intention to return to her position-whether at NAMA or Harpers Ferry. Substantial evidence supports the AJ's finding that she did not. The second argument relates to the interaction between McLane's Title V claim and the agency's obligations under the Rehabilitation Act. Because she did not fully flesh out that second legal argument until her reconsideration briefing, the Court did not address it head-on in the earlier opinion. As explained below, McLane's argument cannot succeed under the deferential standard of review given to the agency in the Title V context. For those reasons, the Court will deny the request for reconsideration. And because McLane's new argument underscores the interrelated nature of her Title V and still-pending disability discrimination claims, the Court will also deny her request to certify the issue for appeal.

A. Reconsideration

McLane first moves under Rule 54(b) for reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment to the agency on her Title V claim. Rule 54(b) applies to any order that “adjudicates fewer than all the claims” in a case, and provides that such an order “may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). This Rule recognizes the Court's “inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order as justice requires.” Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217, 227 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, courts interpret this “abstract phrase narrowly and will grant a motion to reconsider only when the movant demonstrates: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the first order.” King & Spalding, LLP v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 395 F.Supp.3d 116, 119-20 (D.D.C. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). McLane only contends that the opinion constituted “clear error.” Recons. Mot. at 2, ECF No. 108. The Court finds no such error.

Central here is the “deferential[]” standard of review that applies to McLane's Title V claim, which arises on appeal of an administrative determination by an MSPB AJ. See Fogg v. Ashcroft, 254 F.3d 103, 112 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The Court reviews this claim “on the administrative record, and will set aside the MSPB's determination only when ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law'; ‘obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed'; or ‘unsupported by substantial evidence.'” Butler v. West, 164 F.3d 634, 639 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1)-(3)).

As explained in the partial summary judgment opinion, and contrary to McLane's claims now, the AJ's conclusion that the MSPB lacked jurisdiction because McLane had “voluntarily abandoned” her position is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise accords with law. The Court sees no error in those determinations. Likewise unavailing is McLane's renewed due process claim, see Recons. Mot. at 6-8, which the Court again has already addressed. Below, the Court expands only on the two most substantial arguments in McLane's reconsideration briefing.

The Court first rejects McLane's recycled assertions that she had manifested an intent to return to her position triggering the agency's obligation to reinstate her. See id. at 4-6. As the Court has already concluded, the record supports the AJ's finding that McLane's “position” at...