Winns v. DeJoy

Background

Harris L. Winns, representing himself, sued Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, over alleged employment discrimination and retaliation by the Postal Service. Winns had requested not to work Sundays for religious reasons. The Postal Service later issued two removal notices in October 2014 after he failed to report for work on several Sundays.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) later found that the Postal Service discriminated and retaliated against Winns concerning those removal notices and his request for a religious accommodation. The EEOC ordered retroactive reinstatement, back pay, and an investigation into compensatory damages. In a later decision, the EEOC awarded Winns $30,020 in damages.

The EEOC subsequently largely denied Winns’s petition seeking enforcement of its earlier decision. It concluded that the Postal Service had rescinded the 2014 removal notices, that Winns’s employment ended in July 2015 after he failed to return to work, and that the earlier EEOC decision did not address the July 2015 termination. Winns disputed receiving notices about the rescission, the direction to return to work, and the 2015 removal notice. He alleged that the Postal Service fabricated documents and circumstances to make his termination appear justified.

Motion to dismiss

The Postal Service moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). It argued that Winns had not timely completed the required administrative process for a Title VII claim concerning the 2015 termination and that some requested relief was moot, meaning it no longer presented a live dispute. The court treated the motion as brought only under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The court denied the motion to dismiss to the extent it relied on failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies. Winns first contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor on April 4, 2016, but he disputed when he received the Postal Service’s 2015 removal notice and alleged that the underlying documents were fabricated. Because the court had to accept his material allegations as true at this stage, it concluded that exhaustion could not properly be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The court denied dismissal on this issue without prejudice to the Postal Service renewing it in a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to Winns’s allegation that the Postal Service had failed to pay the $30,020 compensatory-damages award. The EEOC had confirmed that the Postal Service paid the award, and Winns did not dispute the authenticity of that confirmation or say that he had not received the money.

Motion to amend

Winns separately sought to amend his complaint to add or clarify claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, several federal and California statutes, common law, and the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the motion to amend.

The court denied as moot Winns’s proposed Title VII claims because the original complaint, broadly construed, already asserted Title VII claims for race, religious, and retaliation-based discrimination, and those claims remained viable after the court denied dismissal based on exhaustion.

The court denied the proposed age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It found that the proposed complaint did not allege enough facts to support an inference of age discrimination and saw no basis to conclude that additional facts could plausibly be alleged. The court also noted that the proposed complaint did not indicate that Winns had given the EEOC the required notice of his intent to sue under that statute.

The court also denied the proposed claims for race-based harassment; failure to prevent a hostile work environment or retaliation; retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5; negligent supervision; fraud; and Fifth Amendment due process violations. It reasoned that these claims were based on the same alleged conduct as Winns’s federal employment-discrimination and retaliation claims. Under the rule that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for discrimination and retaliation in federal employment, the court held that these proposed claims were precluded.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the Postal Service’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. It denied Winns’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. The Postal Service was ordered to answer the original complaint within 14 days of the order.