Young v. Dep't of Treasury

TERESA YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; IRS; AND STEVEN T. MNUCHIN,UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02384-TLP-dkv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

April 9, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL

On June 11, 2019, Teresa Young ("Young") filed her first pro se complaint against the Department of Treasury (the "Agency"), the IRS, and Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, (collectively the "Defendants"). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Subsequently, Young filed several amendments to her complaint. (See ECF Nos. 17, 25, & 28.) On January 8, 2020, Young filed a final motion to amend her complaint, (Mot. to Am. & Correct Compl., ECF No. 91), which this court granted on January 9, 2020, (Order, ECF No. 96). Young then filed her amended complaint on January 10, 2020 alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the "ADA"),¹ and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., ("Title VII"). (Am. Compl., ECF No. 97.)

Before the court is the Defendants' January 28, 2020 motion for partial dismissal pursuant to 12(b)(6). (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 113.) On March 2, 2020 Young filed a motion to exceed the twenty-page limit set by Local Rule 12.1(b) in her response, (Mot., ECF No. 155), which this court denied on March 3, 2020, (Order, ECF No. 156). Young has since appealed, (Appeal, ECF No. 160), and the appeal is pending before the presiding district judge.² Young filed her response on March 10, 2020.³ (Resp., ECF No. 161.)This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (Admin. Order 2013-05, Apr. 29, 2013.)

For the following reasons, it is recommended that the Defendants' motion for partial dismissal be granted.

I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT⁴

Young alleges various instances of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the ADA,⁵ and it is somewhat difficult to follow the allegations in her amended complaint. Young is a military veteran with disabilities. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 71, ECF No. 97.) According to Young, she was hired by the Agency in December 2016 pursuant to a Veterans' Recruitment Appointment and/or the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998. (Id.) Young began working as an office automation clerk for the Agency on March 20, 2017. (Id.)

Young contends that she is an individual with a disability who, with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job of office automation clerk. (Id. ¶ 49.) Young wore a carpal tunnel brace on her left hand/forearm each day to work, which she alleges provided a visual perception of one of her allegedly several disabilities. (Id. ¶ 62.) Young states that this limited her and/or slowed her down in certainfunctions. (Id.) Additionally, Young alleges she has asthma, chronic sinusitis, bronchitis, and allergies. (Id. ¶ 18.)

Young makes numerous allegations against the Agency. Young alleges that in August 2017, Mary Yarbrough ("Yarbrough") and team-manager Alicia Seawood ("Seawood") harassed Young by "forc[ing]" her to sit in a smoker's cubicle. (Id. ¶¶ 17,30.) According to Young, it was to "knowingly aggravate" Young's respiratory conditions, which she contends the Agency was aware of. (Id. ¶ 30.) Young notified Yarbrough of her need for an accommodation due to the following disabilities: asthma, chronic sinusitis, bronchitis, and allergies. (Id. ¶ 18.) Young contends that she completed the Agency's Reasonable Accommodation form and supplied the Agency with accompanying doctor confirmations. (Id. ¶ 19.) According to Young, she then filed an internal EO claim in August 2017. (Id. ¶ 20.) During counseling, the EO counselor informed Young that she could remain in her original cubicle and her operations manager, Reginald Carr ("Carr"), agreed. (Id. ¶ 21.)

Young further contends that the Agency "forced a furlough upon [her]" from September 29, 2017 to January 1, 2018. (Id. ¶ 22.) According to Young, she was then "forced to return to work in an unpaid work status to attend an EO hearing that was prolonged due to management's [failure to respond] in November 2017." (Id. ¶ 23.) Young returned to work on January 2, 2018. (Id. ¶ 24.) Upon her return, Young alleges she was "immediately retaliatedagainst" for her participation in protected activity. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Specifically, Young alleges she has a stress disorder which was known to management and she sought accommodation. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Young states that she was harassed by management instead of being accommodated. (Id.) Young contends that despite her several accommodation requests, the Agency never ordered any item to accommodate her. (Id. ¶ 72.) Young further states that she "was forced into stressful situations and environments to aggravate [her known] medical condition [and] it is illegal to terminate [her] for a known medical disorder that went unaccommodated." (Id.)

Young also contends that she sent several requests via email for a reassignment to the night and/or swing shift to accommodate "multiple disabilities." (Id. ¶¶ 27, 28.) Young alleges that there were several openings for the night and/or swing shifts. (Id. ¶ 28.) Young contends that Carr refused to provide any reason to her as to why she could not be on the night shift. (Id.) Additionally, Young argues that Patrice Smith, a night clerk under Carr's management, was willing to switch shifts with her, but Carr refused. (Id.)

Young also refers to a Keyana Jones ("Jones"). According to Young, at the time she began working at the Agency, Jones, a female employee, transferred from the Atlanta office after getting into a fight. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Young states that although Jones was onprobationary status with the Agency, she was assigned to one of the five clerk positions reserved for a veteran. (Id.) Young contends that Jones was not a veteran. (Id.) Carr eventually transferred Jones back to the Atlanta office upon her request. (Id.) Young argues that Carr could have transferred her, presumably as an accommodation, but chose to transfer Jones instead. (Id.)

In addition, Young was required to sit in an "unaccommodated location" which did not have a working computer, had locked cabinets, and a one-armed chair. (Id. at ¶¶ 27, 35.) According to Young, her requests regarding her unaccommodated workstation were rejected by Carr. (Id.) Young states that this was discrimination due to her disability and her need to go to the doctor.⁶ Following her requests, Young submitted a reassignment request with the EO office.⁷ Young argues that she should have received comparable working technology. (Id. ¶ 50.) On February 22, 2018, Young states that she had to ask again for keys to the cubicle cabinets of the "non-work-ready cubicle." (Id. ¶ 66.)

Young goes on to allege that "the Defense knowingly deceived or willfully obstructed [Young] from competing for employment." (Id. ¶ 29.) Young contends that she applied for multiple jobs, for which she was qualified, including human resource assistant (recruitment and placement), human resource assistant (information system), and voluntary relocation program. (Id.)

Young engaged in an internal mediation, which ended on March 6, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 37.) On March 6, 2018, the internal EO counselor notified the parties that the mediation had closed. (Id. ¶ 68.) Young also alleges that Seawood retaliated against her for her EO participation by "demanding that [Young] provide [Seawood] with [Young's] badge number" on the same day. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 69.) The next day, Young states that she was required to clean out her cubicle. (Id. ¶ 39.) Subsequently, over the next several days, Young was "progressive[ly] asked for more information." (Id. ¶ 40.)

Young further alleges that on March 12, 2018, she returned to work from the weekend and was terminated by Yarbrough and asked for her badge. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 70.) Young's letter of termination states that she was terminated due to two write-ups. (Id. ¶ 42.) Young states that the write-up dated January 2018 pertained to a reasonable accommodation request. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 43.) The second write-up was dated February 22, 2018, and allegedly pertained to a response to an earlier email sent by Young to Yarbrough and Carrrequesting an update on the state of her requested items for her cubicle. (Id. ¶ 44.) Young additionally cites to 5 C.F.R. § 315.803(b) to support her argument that she was entitled to a reasonable time for filing a written answer to her termination. (Id. ¶ 53.) Young further contends that "[she] cannot be terminated due to the failures of management." (Id. ¶ 63.)

Young also makes an allegation against a team manager, Sirina Wilkins ("Wilkins"), which apparently relates to Young's February 22, 2018 write-up. (Id. ¶ 65.) According to Young, Wilkins never informed her of any filings that needed to be done. (Id.) Young states that she sent several emails to Wilkins regarding the filings. (Id.) On February 21, 2018, Young spoke with Wilkins and, according to Young, Wilkins confirmed that there were no filings to be done. (Id.) However, Young contends that she was terminated for lack of filing. (Id.)

Young also contends that Yarbrough retaliated against her by writing her up for "non-completion of filing by [Wilkins]." (Id. 66.). Young cites to Exhibits D7, D7A, and D7B to prove that she attempted to meet with Wilkins on several occasions prior to the write-up on February 22, 2018. (Id.) However, after reviewing the exhibits Young incorporates by reference into her amended complaint, there is only an Exhibit 7. (Ex. 7, ECF No. 22-6.) Exhibit 7, however, regards Young's computer at presumably her "non-work-ready" station and does not demonstrate she attemptedreaching Wilkins prior to being written up. (Id.) Exhibits 11 and 11a, however, do...