Chand v. Regan

Background

Sharon S. Chand, representing herself, brought an employment disability-discrimination action against Michael S. Regan, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The First Amended Complaint asserted claims for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and retaliation. The court had previously allowed the first two claims to proceed and dismissed the accommodation and retaliation claims. Regan moved to dismiss those two claims again.

Chand alleged that several requests for accommodation were denied or delayed, including requests involving her work start time, use of a chair, and telework. She also alleged that she was terminated while on approved Family and Medical Leave Act leave. For retaliation, she alleged that she was treated adversely after complaining about her manager and the workplace, including that her desk was relocated, some job duties were taken away, and she was assigned work outside her role.

Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation

The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. Federal employees generally must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission counselor within 45 days of an alleged discriminatory act or personnel action. Chand acknowledged that she had not contacted a counselor, but alleged that an Environmental Protection Agency employee misled her about her remedial rights as a probationary employee.

Applying an equitable exception to the exhaustion requirement, the court held that Chand plausibly alleged that she was misinformed, relied on that misinformation, diligently pursued relief within the agency, and was representing herself at the time. The court also determined that her formal administrative complaint and the agency’s investigation referenced the alleged accommodation denials, and that the accommodation claims could reasonably be expected to arise from the hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims she had presented administratively. The court further found that the First Amended Complaint adequately alleged that at least some of the requests involved legally cognizable reasonable accommodations.

Retaliation

The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part as to retaliation. A retaliation claim requires allegations of protected activity, a materially adverse employment action, and a causal connection between them. The court found that the alleged relocation of Chand’s desk occurred only a few days after her February 2015 complaint and was alleged to have adversely affected her work environment. That allegation was sufficient to allow the retaliation claim based on the desk relocation to proceed.

The court held that the other newly described actions were undated. Without dates, the court could not determine whether those actions occurred close enough to Chand’s complaint to support an inference of causation. The retaliation claim could therefore proceed only as to the alleged desk relocation; the motion was otherwise granted.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg’s order states that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was denied as to the failure-to-provide-reasonable-accommodation claim and denied as to the retaliation claim based on the alleged desk relocation. The motion was otherwise granted. Chand was granted one additional, final opportunity to amend, and any amended pleading had to be filed within 28 days of the order.