Greer v. Wormuth

Background

Roger E. Greer, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he was terminated from his employment with the Army. The opinion states that Greer had worked as a firefighter, was subject to random urinalysis tests, and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine/d-methamphetamine on April 16, 2015. Greer alleged that the termination was discriminatory because it retaliated against his Merit Systems Protection Board and Equal Employment Opportunity activity and because the Army failed to accommodate his disability under a drug-treatment “Safe Harbor” theory.

Greer asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts supporting a legally recognized claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Greer did not allege facts showing that his termination was based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, the categories of discrimination identified in the Title VII provision applicable to federal employees. The court also noted that Greer had not selected those categories on the form complaint.

As to the Rehabilitation Act, the court found that Greer had made only a conclusory assertion that he had a disability and had not alleged facts showing that he qualified as disabled. The court further explained that, even assuming Greer was disabled, the Rehabilitation Act generally does not treat an employee as disabled when the employer acts because of the employee’s current illegal drug use. The statutory exceptions require that the employee no longer be using illegal drugs. The court found that Greer alleged, at most, that he told a supervisor he was seeking treatment and detoxification, not that he had stopped using illegal drugs.

The court also rejected Greer’s retaliation allegations as insufficient. Greer did not allege facts showing that he engaged in protected activity under Title VII or the Rehabilitation Act, such as opposing unlawful employment practices, participating in a covered investigation or proceeding, or seeking an accommodation in good faith. He also did not allege facts showing a causal connection between protected activity and his termination. In his opposition, Greer identified Equal Employment Opportunity activity on August 12, 2014; the court stated that the more-than-ten-month interval before the proposed removal was insufficient to establish the required causal connection.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. The court allowed Greer to file a First Amended Complaint to cure any or all of the identified deficiencies by June 14, 2024. The court also vacated the May 31, 2024 hearing and decided the motion based on the written submissions.