Davis v. Wormuth

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addressed a motion to dismiss a disabled veteran’s Rehabilitation Act claims against the Secretary of the Army. The court held that the disability discrimination claim could proceed, but dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the retaliation and hostile work environment claims without prejudice. The court also ruled that claims based on the plaintiff’s April 27, 2021 removal from a supervisory position were time barred and permitted amendment of the retaliation and hostile work environment claims.

Holdings

1. Claims arising from Davis's April 27, 2021 removal from his supervisory position, and the acts forming the basis for that removal, were untimely because Davis did not contact an EEOC counselor within 45 days of the discrete discriminatory act.
2. Davis adequately pleaded a disparate-treatment disability-discrimination claim to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
3. The court lacked jurisdiction over Davis's failure-to-accommodate claim because he did not raise that claim in his EEOC complaint and it was not like or reasonably related to the claims he did raise.
4. Davis failed to plead a plausible retaliation claim because he did not adequately connect a protected activity to an adverse employment action.
5. Davis failed to plead conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment, although the claim was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims based on Davis's April 27, 2021 removal from his supervisory position were barred because he did not timely contact an EEOC counselor within 45 days.
2. Whether Davis adequately pleaded a disability-discrimination or disparate-treatment claim under the Rehabilitation Act.
3. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Davis's failure-to-accommodate claim when that theory was not raised in his EEOC complaint.
4. Whether Davis adequately pleaded a Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim.
5. Whether Davis adequately pleaded a disability-based hostile-work-environment claim.

Disposition

other