Burns v. McDonough
- Dulce Foster
- 0:23-cv-00478
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Burns v. McDonough, Judge Foster granted in part and denied in part Burns’s amendment motion, allowing added facts but denying two proposed claims.
Theresa A. Burns was allowed to add facts supporting her remaining wrongful-termination and age-discrimination claims but was not allowed to add religious-discrimination or reprisal claims. Denis McDonough remained the defendant in his official capacity, subject to the court’s filing instructions.
What happened
Theresa A. Burns, representing herself, sued Denis McDonough after alleging that a Veterans Affairs clinic wrongfully terminated her job as an occupational therapist. After earlier dismissals, only her wrongful-termination and age-discrimination claims against McDonough in his official capacity remained. Burns asked to add facts supporting those claims and to add religious-discrimination and reprisal claims.
The court allowed Burns to add factual allegations supporting her existing claims. It denied permission to add the religious-discrimination claim because she had not shown that she completed the required administrative process for that claim. It also denied permission to add the reprisal claim because the proposed complaint did not allege that she opposed an employment practice protected by federal discrimination laws.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend. Burns was ordered to file a revised proposed amended complaint containing only permitted factual changes and no new claims. Her earlier amendment motion was denied as moot.
The detailed version
- Burns v. McDonough · No. 0:23-cv-00478
- Dulce J. Foster
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
Theresa A. Burns proceeded without a lawyer and alleged that a clinic within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs wrongfully terminated her employment as an occupational therapist. Her original complaint asserted five counts: wrongful termination, breach of contract, age discrimination, retaliation, and defamation. After defendants moved for partial dismissal, District Judge Nancy E. Brasel granted that motion. Only Counts I, wrongful termination, and III, age discrimination, remained, and all defendants except Denis McDonough in his official capacity as Secretary of Veterans Affairs were dismissed.
Burns sought leave to file an amended complaint. She proposed adding factual allegations supporting her remaining claims and two new claims for religious discrimination and reprisal. McDonough did not oppose adding factual allegations supporting the existing claims.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts generally allow amendments when justice requires, but may deny an amendment if it would be futile. A proposed claim is futile when it could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court found that the proposed religious-discrimination claim was futile because Burns did not allege, and the record did not show, that she had exhausted the required administrative remedies. The court noted that the 2020 letter from the Veterans Affairs Office of Resolution Management identified the issues accepted for investigation and did not include religious discrimination. Burns alleged that the claim arose from events in 2019, and the court found no discernible reason why she could not have included those allegations in her administrative claim.
The court also found that the proposed reprisal claim could not survive a motion to dismiss. Although Burns had presented a reprisal claim to the Office of Resolution Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed it for failure to identify protected activity. The proposed amended complaint referred to reporting unsafe patient practices and unlicensed clinic care and to refusing to apply for a Veterans Affairs patent for shared rights to a cognitive-performance test. The court found that these allegations did not indicate that Burns opposed an employment practice protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Burns’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. It granted the motion insofar as Burns sought to add factual allegations supporting Counts I and III. It denied the motion in all other respects, including the proposed religious-discrimination and reprisal claims.
The court directed Burns to file a revised proposed amended complaint by March 15, 2024. The revised complaint could include only factual allegations supporting Counts I and III, had to attach a redlined copy showing the changes, and could not include religious-discrimination, reprisal, or other new claims or allegations supporting previously dismissed claims. The defendant was directed to file any objections by March 22, 2024. Burns’s initial motion for leave to amend was denied as moot.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.