Tealeh v. DeJoy

Background

Flomo Tealeh, who was employed as a mail handler for the United States Postal Service at a USPS facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota, sued Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, and United States Attorney Andrew M. Luger. He alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on race and national origin. The amended complaint asserted claims for disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.

Tealeh had filed administrative complaints with the USPS Equal Employment Opportunity Office in 2019 and 2020. The 2019 complaint was dismissed on January 13, 2020, with notice that he could appeal or file a federal lawsuit within 90 days. The 2020 complaint was partially accepted and partially dismissed, and the USPS EEO issued a dismissal notice on March 6, 2021. Tealeh filed this lawsuit on June 1, 2021.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The defendants argued that parts of Tealeh’s claims were untimely or had not been exhausted through the administrative EEO process. They also argued that Tealeh alleged no facts supporting claims against Garland and Luger.

Disparate treatment and retaliation. The court held that allegations supporting Tealeh’s disparate-treatment and retaliation claims that were first raised in his 2019 EEO complaint could not be raised in this lawsuit because he did not sue within 90 days after the 2019 dismissal notice and did not allege that he had filed an earlier lawsuit. The court held, however, that the allegations raised in his 2020 EEO complaint were not time barred because Tealeh filed this lawsuit within 90 days of the March 6, 2021 dismissal notice.

The court further held that later disparate-treatment and retaliation allegations involving conduct after Tealeh filed his 2020 EEO complaint had not been administratively exhausted. Tealeh had not alleged that he filed another EEO complaint concerning those later events, so those allegations could not be raised in this lawsuit in the first instance.

Hostile work environment. The court applied a different limitation-period analysis to the hostile-work-environment claim. It explained that conduct outside the filing period may be considered when it is part of a continuing pattern and at least one related act falls within the actionable period. The court therefore held that conduct first raised in the 2019 EEO complaint could remain actionable if it formed part of a pattern related to actionable hostile-work-environment allegations. It also held that later similar conduct could be considered because Tealeh had raised related conduct in his 2020 EEO complaint.

Claims against Garland and Luger. The court granted the motion to dismiss Tealeh’s claims against Garland and Luger because the amended complaint alleged no facts implicating either defendant’s conduct.

The order states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part: it was granted as to the claims against Garland and Luger and denied as to the claims against DeJoy as addressed in the opinion.

Tealeh’s Motions

The court denied Tealeh’s motion for summary judgment. The motion did not comply with several local filing requirements, including requirements for a meet-and-confer statement, legal memorandum, hearing notice, word-count certificate, and proposed order. The court also found the motion premature because discovery had not yet begun.

The court denied Tealeh’s separate motion to “hear” his complaint because it could not determine the motion’s purpose or the relief requested.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Tealeh’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and his motion to hear his complaint was denied.