Anello v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Maria Jesus Anello, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a fourth amended complaint against her former employer, the Social Security Administration. She alleged that she had disabilities including heart conditions, a history of strokes, and a work-related hand and wrist injury that developed into Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy/Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. She claimed that the agency failed to accommodate her by refusing requests to change the position of her desk, limit repetitive hand movements, provide breaks to take pain medication, and follow other medical restrictions.

Anello also alleged that Assistant Manager Paul Sampson physically blocked her from reaching her desk for medication, blocked her again when she sought permission from another manager, mocked her for crying in pain, and used threatening or humiliating physical gestures and tones. She characterized this conduct as disability-based harassment and a hostile work environment. The government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional dismissal of previously barred allegations

The court dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) Anello’s repeated allegations that management demanded additional medical restrictions from her doctor and that the agency forged her retirement application. The court had previously ruled that claims based on those allegations exceeded the scope of her administrative equal-employment proceedings and therefore were outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disability discrimination

The court held that Anello had not plausibly alleged that she was a “qualified individual” under the Rehabilitation Act. That requirement means she had to allege that she could perform the essential functions—fundamental duties—of her Service Representative position, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

The fourth amended complaint supplied more detail about her duties, including serving the public, interviewing claimants, handling mail, answering phones, researching, filing, printing, calculating benefits, correcting records, using computer programs, and performing related tasks. Anello alleged that typing took about 30 percent of her time and that typing for hours at a time was not essential. But the court found that she did not explain how long she had to type continuously or what physical tasks occupied the remaining 70 percent of her time. Her final medical restrictions limited repetitive motion, gripping, and grasping in both hands. In the court’s view, those restrictions made it implausible that she could perform the essential duties involving repetitive hand movements, gripping, or grasping. The court also noted that she referred to other essential duties that could have been assigned to her without identifying them.

Because Anello had received several opportunities to amend and had not cured this deficiency, the court dismissed the disability discrimination claim with prejudice.

Failure to accommodate

The court applied the same qualified-individual requirement to Anello’s failure-to-accommodate claim. Because she had not plausibly alleged that she could perform the position’s essential requirements with or without an accommodation, the court dismissed this claim with prejudice as well. The claim concerned the requested desk configuration and accommodations for her work restrictions, including breaks to take pain medication.

Disability harassment and hostile work environment

The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had not decided whether disability-based hostile-work-environment claims are available under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act. Without definitively resolving that legal question, the court evaluated whether Anello had adequately pleaded such a claim under a test requiring harassment to be disability-based, unwelcome, sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter working conditions, and known to the employer without prompt remedial action.

The court found the allegations sufficient at the pleading stage. It concluded that Sampson’s alleged physical blocking, mocking, hostile gestures, and intimidation could plausibly be severe or pervasive enough to alter Anello’s working conditions. The allegations also supported an inference that his conduct was motivated by her medical conditions because it was connected to her attempts to obtain pain medication and his alleged mocking of her pain. Finally, Anello alleged facts supporting an inference that Sampson was a supervisor who could take significant employment actions, including affecting promotion, benefits, retirement, and accommodation requests. The court therefore found a basis for holding the Social Security Administration responsible for the alleged supervisory harassment.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice Anello’s disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, as well as the previously barred allegations concerning additional medical restrictions and the retirement application. Judge Donna Ryu denied the motion to dismiss the disability-based harassment and hostile-work-environment claim. The court scheduled an initial case-management conference for March 18, 2020.