Kahsai v. Dejoy

Background

Bereket Kahsai, who represented himself, sued Louis DeJoy, the U.S. Postmaster General. Kahsai alleged that the United States Postal Service discriminated against him under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Kahsai alleged that, from approximately May through August 2016, USPS supervisors treated him unfairly because of his appearance, race, and Eritrean national origin. He alleged that he was denied promotions and advancement while non-Black and non-East African employees advanced. He also alleged that he received two letters of warning, was found ineligible for a USPS career-advancement program, was forced to transfer to a less desirable shift, and was demoted. He appealed the letters of warning, and one was reduced while the other was scheduled to be removed from his record.

Kahsai filed a formal discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in October 2016, alleging race, color, and national-origin discrimination. An EEOC administrative judge granted summary judgment to USPS in May 2019, and USPS issued a final agency decision on May 16, 2019. That decision stated that Kahsai could file a federal lawsuit within 90 days after receiving it. The complaint did not show when Kahsai received the decision, and he argued that he did not receive it.

Kahsai first sued in August 2019, but that case was dismissed for failure to properly serve the defendants and prosecute the case. He filed this lawsuit in May 2020 and later filed a second amended complaint adding Title VII retaliation, Americans with Disabilities Act claims, and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims.

Defendant’s Motion

The Postmaster General moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s authority to hear a claim, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The Postmaster General argued that the claims were untimely and that the complaint failed to state a claim.

Race and National-Origin Claims

Title VII regulations generally require a federal employee to file a civil action within 90 days after receiving the agency’s final decision. The court recognized that the final agency decision was issued on May 16, 2019, and that Kahsai filed his first lawsuit within 90 days. Although this lawsuit was filed nearly a year after the decision, the court held that the complaint did not clearly establish that Kahsai had received the decision. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the race and national-origin discrimination claims as untimely.

Retaliation and Disability Claims

Federal employees must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing discrimination claims in federal court. This includes contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor within the applicable period and raising each separate alleged unlawful employment practice.

The court found that Kahsai’s EEOC complaint alleged race, color, and national-origin discrimination, but did not allege retaliation, disability discrimination, or failure to promote. Because Kahsai had not exhausted his administrative remedies for those claims, the court dismissed his Title VII retaliation claim and his Americans with Disabilities Act claims.

Minnesota Human Rights Act Claims

The court also dismissed Kahsai’s Minnesota Human Rights Act claims. It held that Title VII provides the exclusive federal-court remedy for discrimination claims by federal employees, and that the Rehabilitation Act provides the exclusive judicial remedy for disability-discrimination claims by federal employees. The court therefore concluded that the Minnesota claims were precluded by those federal statutes.

Order and Classification

The court ordered that the Postmaster General’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part: it was granted as to Kahsai’s retaliation, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims, and denied as to his race and national-origin discrimination claims. This is a procedural order because it ruled on a motion to dismiss without deciding the ultimate merits of the remaining discrimination claims.