Dave v. Lanier ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PRATEEK DAVE, :
:
Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 08-0856 (RMU)
:
v. : Re Document No.: 12
:
CATHY LANIER et al., :
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND THE REHABILITATION ACT
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on the defendant’s1 motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s
claims of disability discrimination. The plaintiff, a former cadet at the District of Columbia
Metropolitan Police Department Institute of Police Science (“IPS”), alleges that the defendant
discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq.; and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The court previously denied the
defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII claims. The defendant now moves to
dismiss the plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Because the allegations in the
complaint fail to state a claim under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, the court grants the
defendant’s motion to dismiss those claims.
1
Although this suit was originally brought against defendants Cathy Lanier and the District of
Columbia, the court previously dismissed all claims against defendant Lanier. See Mem. Op.
(Mar. 27, 2009) at 1 n.1. Accordingly, because the District of Columbia is the only remaining
defendant, the court refers to “the defendant” in the singular.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
The plaintiff, an Indian American male, served as a cadet at IPS from September 2004
until September 2006. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6. He alleges that during a training exercise in November
2004, a trainer pushed him down a hill, causing severe injury to his shoulder. Id. ¶ 6. Following
the incident, the plaintiff was placed on sick leave, and then on limited duty, for five months, and
his probationary period was extended while he received treatment for his shoulder injury. Id.
The plaintiff alleges that after he returned to IPS, his supervisors gave him only academic
assignments supplemented by physical training assignments, trained him with a lower-level class,
made sarcastic remarks about his abilities and withheld training necessary for graduation from
IPS. Id. ¶ 7. As a result of the repetitious physical training, the plaintiff developed asthma,
resulting in his taking an additional one to two months of sick leave. Id. While cadets normally
graduate from IPS within six months, the plaintiff failed to graduate after spending two years at
the academy. Id. ¶ 8. In September 2006, the defendant issued the plaintiff a letter of
termination from IPS. Id. ¶ 9.
B. Procedural History
The plaintiff commenced this action on May 19, 2008, alleging that the defendant (1)
violated Title VII by retaliating against him after he complained that he had been treated in a
discriminatory manner, see Compl. ¶¶ 18-22; and (2) violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation
Act by subjecting him to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment based on his
disability, failing to accommodate his disability and “retaliating against [him] by terminating his
2
employment because of his disability” or the perception that he was disabled,2 id. ¶¶ 11-17.
The defendant moved to dismiss all of the plaintiff’s claims in July 2008. See generally
Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Mot.”). In a memorandum opinion issued in March 2009, the
court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim. See
Mem. Op. (Mar. 27, 2009) at 5-11. The court withheld judgment, however, on the defendant’s
motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, observing that Congress
had recently enacted the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), which altered the scope of
protection afforded to individuals under the ADA. See id. at 4-5. Accordingly, the court allowed
the parties to submit further briefing on the effect of the ADAAA on the plaintiff’s claims of
disability discrimination. See id.
With the parties’ supplemental briefing on the impact of the ADAAA now complete, see
generally Def.’s Supplemental Mem. Supporting Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Supplement”); Pl.’s
Supplemental Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Supplement”); Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s
Supplement (“Def.’s Supplemental Reply”), the court turns to the applicable legal standards and
the parties’ arguments.
2
The ADA “bars retaliation against an individual for making a charge under or opposing any
practice made unlawful by that Act.” Kersey v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 586 F.3d 13,
16 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Yet if the defendant did, in fact, terminate the plaintiff’s employment
because he was disabled or because the defendant regarded him as disabled, as the plaintiff
alleges, see Compl. ¶ 14, it would constitute disparate treatment in violation of the ADA, rather
than retaliation as the plaintiff suggests, see id. (stating that the defendant “knowingly and
intentionally engaged in unlawful discrimination based on [the plaintiff’s] disability by . . .
retaliating against [the plaintiff] by terminating his employment because of his disability or
Defendant[] regarded him as disabled”). The plaintiff does not allege that he filed a charge of
disability discrimination or otherwise accused the defendant of disability discrimination while at
IPS. See generally Compl. Accordingly, the court does not construe the complaint as alleging
that the defendant retaliated against him for filing a charge under the ADA or otherwise opposing
the defendant’s violation of the ADA.
3
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Browning v.
Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The complaint need only set forth a short and plain
statement of the claim, giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which
it rests. Kingman Park Civic Ass’n v. Williams, 348 F.3d 1033, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (internal
citations omitted). “Such simplified notice pleading is made possible by the liberal opportunity
for discovery and the other pre-trial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more
precisely the basis of both claim and defense to define more narrowly the disputed facts and
issues.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957) (internal quotation marks omitted),
abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). It is not
necessary for the plaintiff to plead all elements of his prima facie case in the complaint,
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511-14 (2002), or “plead law or match facts to every
element of a legal theory,” Krieger v. Fadely, 211 F.3d 134, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Yet, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007) (abrogating the oft-quoted language from Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-56, instructing
courts not to dismiss for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that “no set of
facts in support of his claim [] would entitle him to relief”). A claim is facially plausible when
the pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
4
is liable for the misconduct.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. “The plausibility standard is not akin to
a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Id.In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must treat the complaint’s factual
allegations – including mixed questions of law and fact – as true and draw all reasonable
inferences therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor. Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67
(D.C. Cir. 2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir.
2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. While many well-pleaded complaints are conclusory, the
court need not accept as true inferences unsupported by facts set out in the complaint or legal
conclusions cast as factual allegations. Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.
Cir. 2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
B. The ADAAA Does Not Apply to the Plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims
As a preliminary matter, the court must determine whether the amendments to the ADA
enacted through the ADAAA apply to the plaintiff’s claims. It is undisputed that the allegedly
discriminatory conduct took place before the ADAAA became effective on January 1, 2009. See
Compl. ¶¶ 5-10. The defendant maintains that the ADAAA does not apply retroactively and that
as a result, the plaintiff’s claims are governed by the ADA. Def.’s Supplement at 1-3. The
plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the ADAAA should apply retroactively in this case
because he seeks prospective relief. Pl.’s Supplement at 2-4.
Numerous courts, including this Circuit, have considered this issue and concluded that
the ADAAA does not apply retroactively. See Lytes v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 572 F.3d 936,
5
942 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Agro Distribution, LLC,
555 F.3d 462, 470 n.8 (5th Cir. 2009); Moran v. Premier Educ. Group, LP, 599 F. Supp. 2d 263,
271-72 (D. Conn. 2009) (noting that “it appears that every court that has addressed this issue . . .
has concluded that the 2008 Amendments [to the ADA] cannot be applied retroactively to
conduct that preceded its effective date”)). Thus, the Circuit’s holding in Lytes forecloses the
plaintiff’s argument that the ADAAA applies to his claims of disability discrimination,3 and the
court will apply the pre-amendment ADA in assessing the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
C. The Court Grants the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s ADA and
Rehabilitation Act Claims
1. Legal Standard for Disability Discrimination
To establish that a defendant violated the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act,4 a plaintiff must
show that he or she is an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable
accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position, and who suffered an adverse
3
The Circuit’s holding in Lytes also forecloses the plaintiff’s argument that the ADAAA applies
to his claims because he seeks prospective relief. In Jenkins v. National Board of Medical
Examiners, the principal case upon which the plaintiff relies, the Sixth Circuit held that because
the plaintiff sought purely prospective relief – namely, an injunction requiring the defendant to
give him additional time to take a medical licensing test to accommodate his reading disorder –
no injustice would result from applying the amended law, and therefore the ADAAA applied to
the plaintiff’s claims. 2009 WL 331638, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2009). By contrast, in Lytes, as
in this case, the plaintiff sought both reinstatement and damages. See Compl. at 13, Lytes v. D.C.
Water & Sewer Auth., 527 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2007) (Civil Action No. 05-0402); Compl. at
5. The Circuit concluded that because the plaintiff “requested retrospective relief, including
compensatory damages and back pay,” Lytes, 572 F.3d at 939, the ADAAA did not govern the
plaintiff’s claims, id. at 942. Therefore, the fact that the plaintiff in this case requested
reinstatement is unavailing.
4
The Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits disability-based discrimination in federal employment, is
to be interpreted coterminously with the ADA. See Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936, 943 (D.C. Cir.
2008); Breen v. Dep’t of Transp., 282 F.3d 839, 841 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Thus, the court’s analysis
of the plaintiff’s ADA claim applies equally to the plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim.
6
employment decision due to his or her disability. Breen v. Dep’t of Transp., 282 F.3d 839, 841
(D.C. Cir. 2002); LaCorte v. O’Neill, 139 F. Supp. 2d 45, 47-48 (D.D.C. 2001) (citing Barth v.
Gelb, 2 F.3d 1180, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). To prove that he or she has a disability, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that his or her condition “substantially limited” one or more major life
activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). The applicable EEOC regulations explain that an individual is
“substantially limited” if he or she is
(i) unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general
population can perform; or (ii) significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or
duration under which [he or she] can perform a particular major life activity as
compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in
the general population can perform that same major life activity.
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). For the impairment to substantially limit a major life activity, its
“impact must also be permanent or long term.” Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534
U.S. 184, 198 (2002) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(ii)-(iii)).
Individuals who are “regarded as” having a disability are also disabled within the
meaning of the ADA. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489 (1999). The Supreme
Court has explained that
[t]here are two apparent ways in which individuals may fall within this statutory
definition: (1) a [defendant] mistakenly believes that a person has a physical
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or (2) a covered
entity mistakenly believes that an actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits
one or more major life activities.
Id.
2. The Plaintiff Has Failed to Plead a Cognizable Claim of Disability Discrimination
As a preliminary matter, the court finds it useful to clarify the standard of pleading that
applies to the plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination, as articulated by Judge Bates in
7
Mitchell v. Yates, 402 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D.D.C. 2005). As Judge Bates observed, the Supreme
Court in Swierkiewicz held that a plaintiff need not plead every element of a prima facie case of
discrimination as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), as
those elements establish only one manner in which a plaintiff may raise an inference of
discrimination. Mitchell, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 228 (citing Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 510-11).
Judge Bates noted, however, that the Swierkiewicz Court did not address whether a plaintiff must
“provide notice of the specific basis for [his or her] protected status as disabled, a matter separate
from the McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework and the issue of evidence that would
support an inference of discrimination.” Id. Judge Bates concluded that “[n]othing in
Swierkiewicz indicates that notice pleading in discrimination cases eliminates the requirement to
plead a ‘short and plain statement’ that would put a defendant on notice of the basis of a
plaintiff’s claim of being an individual with a disability.” Id. Indeed, as Judge Bates noted, the
Supreme Court in Sutton upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ ADA claims because the
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege how their impairment substantially limited them in the major
life activity of working. Id. (citing Sutton, 527 U.S. at 488-89). The court considers Judge
Bates’s reasoning in Mitchell persuasive and holds that a complaint “must adequately allege facts
sufficient to support the claim that [the plaintiff] has a ‘disability’ within the meaning of the
ADA, or else be subject to dismissal.” Id.The defendant urges the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s ADA claim because he has failed
to plead that he suffers from a disability. Def.’s Mot. at 3-6. More specifically, the defendant
states that “the Complaint is devoid of any allegation that [the plaintiff’s] unspecified condition
(if any) has a substantial impact upon any major life activity.” Id. at 5. In addition, the defendant
8
contends that even if the plaintiff were deemed to have been disabled by virtue of the shoulder
injury that he suffered in November 2004 and the asthma that he developed following the
November 2004 incident, his claims would still fail because his disabilities were temporary, not
permanent.5 Id. at 5-6.
To the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff failed to allege that his condition
substantially limited a major life activity, the plaintiff responds that his impairments (namely, his
shoulder injury and his asthma) substantially limited him in the major life activity of working.
Pl.’s Opp’n at 4. And in response to the defendant’s assertion that his impairments were only
temporary, the plaintiff asserts that he is permanently impaired despite the fact that he only took
finite periods of leave to treat his shoulder injury and his asthma. Id. Finally, the plaintiff notes
that his claims are based on the allegation that the defendant discriminated against him because
of his disability and/or discriminated against him because the defendant regarded him as
disabled. Id. at 3. Therefore, he maintains, his complaint should survive the defendant’s motion
to dismiss even if the court concludes as a matter of law that he was not actually disabled. Id. at
3-4.
The court will first address the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff has failed to
adequately plead that he had an impairment that substantially impacted a major life activity.
Both the Supreme Court and this Circuit have assumed without deciding that working is a major
life activity. See Sutton, 527 U.S. at 492; Duncan v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 240 F.3d
5The defendant also suggests, without elaboration, that the plaintiff has failed to allege that he
sustained an adverse employment action related to his purported disability. Def.’s Mot. at 3.
The defendant offers no reasoning or case law in support of this point, and in light of the court’s
dismissal of the claims on the grounds discussed below, the court will not address it.
9
1110, 1114 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Because the defendant does not contest the issue, see generally
Def.’s Mot.; Def.’s Reply, the court will also assume for the purposes of ruling on this motion
that working is a major life activity.
The applicable EEOC regulations specify that an individual is substantially limited in the
major life activity of working if he or she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform
either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average
person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). “The
inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the
major life activity of working.” Id. The Supreme Court has elaborated on this definition by
stating that to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, an individual
must be precluded from more than one type of job, a specialized job, or a particular
job of choice. If jobs utilizing an individual’s skills (but perhaps not his or her
unique talents) are available, one is not precluded from a substantial class of jobs.
Similarly, if a host of different types of jobs are available, one is not precluded from
a broad range of jobs.
Sutton, 527 U.S. at 492.
In this case, the plaintiff asserts that as a result of his shoulder injury and his asthma, he
was “placed on sick leave status and subsequently on limited duty status and his probationary
period was extended.” Compl. ¶ 6. The plaintiff further claims that he “was relegated to only
academic work at the academy, supplemented by physical training.” Id. ¶ 7. Thus, the plaintiff’s
own account of his impairments indicates that although he was temporarily unable to perform
any work while he was on sick leave, from the time he returned from sick leave he was able to
perform academic work and a limited amount of physical work. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. The plaintiff further
suggests that his inability to fully perform physical tasks resulted in his termination from IPS.
10
See id. ¶¶ 6-9. In other words, the plaintiff has asserted, at most, only that his impairments
significantly restricted his ability to perform purely physical work, as opposed to significantly
restricting his “ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes
as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(j)(3)(i). As a consequence, the plaintiff’s allegations fail to adequately state how his
impairments substantially limited him in the major life activity of working. Cf. Bonieskie v.
Mukasey, 540 F. Supp. 2d 190, 200 (D.D.C. 2008) (dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint after
determining that “[a]t most, he [had] offered evidence that his impairments affected his ability to
do the job he held”); Mitchell, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 229 (noting that the “plaintiff’s complaint
concede[d] that he [was] capable of performing as a police officer with administrative duties”).
Although the plaintiff has failed to properly allege that he was actually disabled, his
complaint may still survive the defendant’s motion to dismiss if he plausibly alleged that the
defendant mistakenly regarded him as disabled. Sutton, 527 U.S. at 489. The complaint,
however, is devoid of any allegations that would suggest that the defendant perceived him as
having a condition that would qualify as a disability. To the contrary, the plaintiff asserts in the
complaint that the defendant placed him on limited duty status and relegated him to academic
work supplemented by physical training. See Compl. ¶¶ 6-7. This account suggests that the
defendant believed that jobs utilizing the plaintiff’s skills were available; it indicates, in other
words, that the defendant did not regard him as substantially limited in the major life activity of
working. Cf. Mitchell, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 229 n.3 (holding that because, by the plaintiff’s own
account, the defendants were aware that the plaintiff could perform administrative duties and
11
assigned him such duties, the “defendants did not ‘regard’ him as substantially limited in the
major life activity of working”).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. An Order consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 3rd day of February, 2010.
RICARDO M. URBINA
United States District Judge
12