Carlos A. Alford v. Department of Commerce et al.

Summary

This Order and Memorandum and Recommendation addresses Carlos A. Alford’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, motion for a pre-hearing conference, and frivolity review of claims arising from his employment with the U.S. Census Bureau. The magistrate judge recommends allowing the Rehabilitation Act hostile-work-environment and failure-to-accommodate claims, a Civil Service Reform Act claim, and a state-law defamation claim against specified defendants to proceed, while dismissing the Rehabilitation Act retaliatory-discharge claim and claims against other defendants. The recommendation also proposes substituting the Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, as the proper defendant for the federal employment claims.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff adequately demonstrated inability to prepay court costs and was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. The request for a pre-hearing or discovery conference was premature and was denied without prejudice.
3. Disability-discrimination claims by a federal agency employee proceed under the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA.
4. The retaliatory-discharge claim should be dismissed because plaintiff alleged multiple reasons for termination, including non-discriminatory reasons, and therefore did not allege retaliation as the but-for cause.
5. The hostile-work-environment and failure-to-accommodate claims should be allowed to proceed against the Secretary of Commerce at the pleading-screening stage.
6. Plaintiff's allegation that he was suspended for refusing to obtain information by allegedly illegal means stated a potentially cognizable CSRA claim that should proceed at this stage.
7. The Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, should be substituted as the defendant for plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act and CSRA claims, and the individual employees and other defendants should be dismissed from those claims.
8. Plaintiff's allegation that Holly Hillman falsely reported his work performance was sufficient at the frivolity-review stage to allow a defamation claim against Hillman to proceed, while claims against other defendants should be dismissed.
9. There is no private North Carolina cause of action for perjury, and statements made in the course of and relevant to EEOC proceedings are absolutely privileged; supplemental allegations did not add viable claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether plaintiff's motion for a pre-hearing conference was premature before service and completion of frivolity review.
3. Whether plaintiff's allegations stated potentially cognizable Rehabilitation Act claims for hostile work environment and failure to accommodate.
4. Whether plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act retaliatory-discharge claim failed because the alleged retaliatory motive was not the but-for cause of termination.
5. Whether plaintiff's allegation concerning suspension for refusing to violate law, rule, or regulation stated a potentially cognizable CSRA claim.
6. Whether the Secretary of Commerce was the proper defendant for the federal-sector Rehabilitation Act and CSRA claims.
7. Whether plaintiff's allegations stated a potentially cognizable North Carolina defamation claim against Holly Hillman.
8. Whether plaintiff could maintain a civil claim based on alleged perjury and whether statements made in EEOC proceedings were absolutely privileged.

Disposition

other