Kuhl v. McDonough

Background

Sarah J. Kuhl, a physician proceeding without a lawyer, sued Douglas Collins, identified in the opinion as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Kuhl alleged that her employment with the Department of Veterans Affairs involved unequal pay, unequal assistance and research time, incorrect part-time classifications, reduced benefits, retaliation, and problems affecting her retirement benefits.

Her Second Amended Complaint asserted five claims. She cited the Equal Pay Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, “CFR Title 38 7405,” and “VA retirement policy.” She sought back pay, interest, Thrift Savings Plan contributions, payment for research time, corrections to her full-time-equivalent status, a permanent part-time position, and changes to her employment records.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The court considered a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally recognized claim supported by enough factual allegations to make liability plausible. The court generally accepts factual allegations as true at this stage but does not accept legal conclusions as facts. Because Kuhl represented herself, the court read her pleadings liberally.

Rulings on the claims

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act claims. The court held that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does not create a separate cause of action; it changes when certain Title VII compensation claims accrue. Federal employees bringing Title VII claims must first complete specified administrative steps. The court found that Kuhl’s Second Amended Complaint did not adequately allege that she completed those steps within the required time. The court therefore granted the motion as to these claims and dismissed them for failure to satisfy administrative exhaustion requirements.

Equal Pay Act claims. The court ruled that the Equal Pay Act claims based on Kuhl’s first claim were untimely because the employment period ended in 2008, beyond the statute’s two- or three-year limitations periods. As to the other claims, the court found that Kuhl had not alleged a pay difference based on sex. The court therefore granted the motion as to the Equal Pay Act claims and dismissed them as untimely with respect to Claim 1 and for failure to allege a sex-based pay disparity with respect to the other claims.

Other claims. The court granted the motion as to Kuhl’s remaining claims. It explained that the Civil Service Reform Act does not provide a cause of action in district court. It also stated that “CFR Title 38 7405” does not exist; if Kuhl intended to cite 38 U.S.C. § 7405, that statute authorizes certain VA hiring arrangements but does not provide a private cause of action. The court further found that Kuhl had not identified a VA retirement policy or legal basis allowing her to enforce such a policy in this court.

Procedural matters

The court disregarded a second copy of Kuhl’s opposition brief because it was filed late. It also did not consider new factual allegations in the opposition because a Rule 12(b)(6) motion generally considers the complaint, not new allegations introduced in briefing.

The court granted the Secretary’s motion and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint. The court allowed Kuhl to file a motion for leave to amend, attaching a proposed Third Amended Complaint, no later than September 9, 2025. The proposed amendment must explain, among other things, whether each cited law permits a civil action in this court, whether required administrative remedies were exhausted, whether the claims were timely, and whether the facts plausibly support liability.

The order states that if Kuhl does not file such a motion, or if the motion does not show that amendment would not be futile, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice as to claims for which mandatory administrative proceedings have not expired, including a later action seeking review of an administrative decision, but with prejudice as to all other claims asserted in this court.