Ransom v. Mayorkas

1

EYPHRA RANSOM, Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS et al, Defendants.

CIVIL No. 1:21-01563-JMC

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J. MARK COULSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Eyphra Ransom seeks review of the Merit Systems Review Board (MSPB) decision affirming her termination from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (ECF Nos. 1, 14). Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Transfer (ECF No. 29) and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 36). The Court has considered the parties' corresponding responses and replies (ECF Nos 31, 41, 44) and finds that no hearing is necessary. Loc. R 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons set forth below Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was formerly employed as a Logistics Management Specialist at FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C. (ECF No. 14 at 2). Plaintiff received a Notice of Proposal to Remove on August 21, 2019, which informed that Plaintiff's supervisor proposed to remove her from her position. (ECF No. 29, Ex. 2). The Notice provided twenty-four (24) “specifications” of Plaintiff's behaviors, grouped according to “charges”, as support for the proposed termination. Id. As explained in its Removal Decision dated October 16, 2019, FEMA ultimately terminated Plaintiff's employment effective October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 29, Ex. 3). The Removal Decision referenced the rationale as summarized in the Notice of Proposal to Remove and explained Plaintiff's rights, including her right to appeal to the MSPB. Id.

Plaintiff timely appealed her termination to the MSPB. (ECF No. 29, Ex. 4). Plaintiff listed the following reasons in challenging her removal: (1) the specifications lacked evidence; (2) Plaintiff was not provided with materials that FEMA used in its decision-making; (3) Plaintiff was discriminated against for her physical disabilities; and (4) Plaintiff was retaliated against for whistleblowing activity, particularly for reporting “gross mismanagement, abuse of authority and retaliation for exercise of rights.” Id. In its “Initial Decision”, the MSPB evaluated the specifications and charges against Plaintiff, particularly pairing the instances with testimony from FEMA employees, including Plaintiff's own testimony. (ECF No. 1, Ex. 2). The MSPB found that Plaintiff was not discriminated against based on physical disability, FEMA did not commit harmful procedural error, and Plaintiff's due process rights were not violated. (ECF No. 1, Ex. 2). The MSPB sustained FEMA's “charges” against Plaintiff and affirmed its decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Id. The MSPB's Initial Decision became final on September 3, 2020, after which Plaintiff had thirty (30) days to seek judicial or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) review. Id. at 61. The MSPB's decision also provided guidance concerning review of whistleblower claims: the appellant was to file a petition for judicial review “with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction” within sixty (60) days of the Initial Decision becoming final. Id. at 62.

On October 3, 2020, Plaintiff appealed the MSPB's decision to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations. (ECF No. 1, Ex. 3). The EEOC noted that Plaintiff raised no arguments in her petition. Id. at 3. After generally analyzing whether the MSPB's decision constituted “correct interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation, or policy directive, and is supported by the evidence in the record as a whole” the EEOC concurred with the MSPB's decision and found that Plaintiff was not discriminated against in a decision dated May 24, 2021. Id. at 5. That decision informed Plaintiff of her “right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court, based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within thirty (30)” days of receiving the EEOC's decision. Id. at 6.

Proceeding Pro se, Plaintiff subsequently filed suit in this Court on June 23, 2021. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff's Complaint form indicates that she alleges unlawful discrimination against FEMA under (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title VII”); (2) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 to 12117; (3) 42 U.S.C. “1983's discrimination statute.” (ECF No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff's Complaint seeks relief from FEMA's alleged failure to hire, termination, failure to accommodate disability, and retaliation, all based on Plaintiff's race, color, gender, and/or disability diagnosis of autism. Id. at 4. Plaintiff's Complaint states that she filed a charge with the EEOC on June 19, 2019, and has not been issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter. Id. at 5. Plaintiff's Complaint was accompanied by a “Statement of Facts” which she has since updated. (ECF Nos. 1 and 14).

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer (ECF No. 29). Defendants' Motion argues that Plaintiff does not have a cause of action under Section 1983 as the law pertains to state, and not federal, actors; Plaintiff does not have a cause of action under the ADA as the law does not apply to the federal government; Plaintiff's Title VII claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and finally, venue is improper in the District of Maryland. (ECF No. 29, Ex. 1).

Plaintiff's response in opposition focuses on the MSPB's failure to address her retaliation claim and purportedly alleges, for the first time, violations under the Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29. U.S.C. § 791. (ECF No. 31, Ex. 1). Plaintiff contends that she exhausted her administrative remedies as it pertains to her retaliation claim, but neither the MSPB judge nor the EEOC addressed that claim. Id. at 9. Plaintiff additionally argues that venue is proper in the District of Maryland because she resides in the state. Id. at 32-33.

Defendants were subsequently granted two extensions of time to file a reply. (ECF Nos. 33, 35). During that time, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 36), arguing that Defendants' requests for extensions of time made it such that the time for pleadings had closed. Defendants filed a combined opposition to Plaintiff's Motion and reply to their own, arguing that Plaintiff did not properly raise her retaliation claim at the MSPB level, but even if she did, she has not now offered evidence to show FEMA's legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for terminating her were pretextual. (ECF No. 41 at 1-2). Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is procedurally improper, and even if construed as one for summary judgment, lacks any arguments on the merits. Id. at 2. Lastly, Defendants alternatively argue that venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Id.

After being granted her own extension of time, Plaintiff filed a reply to her “Motion for Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 44). In her filing, Plaintiff reiterates that this case focuses on the MSPB's failure to address her retaliation claim. Id. at 16. Plaintiff also argues that she was discriminated against under Title VII in that she was not selected for a job opportunity. Id. at 19. In addition, Plaintiff urges that she was discriminated and retaliated against under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 based on her autism. Id. at 22-23. Finally, Plaintiff argues that her termination was pretextual and venue is proper in Maryland. Id. at 30-32.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and the case must be dismissed. For the same reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants posit that this case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 29). A complaint may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) where a plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Khoury v. Meserve, 268 F.Supp.2d 600, 606 (D. Md. 2003). “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Clarke v. DynCorp Int'l LLC, 962 F.Supp.2d 781, 787 (D. Md. 2013) (citing Piney Run Preservation Ass'n v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cnty., 523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 2008)). “In a 12(b)(1) motion, the court ‘may consider evidence outside the pleadings' to help determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case before it.” Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 364 F.Supp.3d 568, 573 (D. Md. 2019) (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991)).

Defendants argue that even if the Court finds Plaintiff sufficiently exhausted her administrative remedies, she has still failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No 29). The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “is to test the sufficiency of a complaint and ‘not to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.'” Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” ...