Lee v. Saul

Background

Danny Lee, who was representing himself, sued Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, alleging employment discrimination based on disability. Lee alleged that the Social Security Administration failed to accommodate his hip pain and depression and engaged in disparate treatment, retaliation, and harassment. He asserted claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Lee’s complaint alleged that the agency removed reasonable accommodations, failed to follow its accommodation and leave procedures, assigned him four times more work than a coworker, gave instructions that prevented him from doing his job, kept time and leave records incorrectly, and destroyed medical evidence and emails. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The recommendation would have dismissed Lee’s accommodation, disparate-treatment, hostile-work-environment, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act claims, while allowing his Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim to proceed. Both sides objected.

District Court’s Review

The court explained that it could accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It reviewed disputed portions under a fresh review standard and reviewed undisputed or merely repetitive objections for clear error. The court also declined to consider new factual allegations generally raised for the first time in Lee’s objections, although it considered Lee’s clarification about who allegedly made the retaliatory statement because that clarification contradicted the original claim.

Rehabilitation Act Claims

The court dismissed Lee’s failure-to-accommodate claim. The complaint did not identify a specific accommodation that Lee requested and that the Social Security Administration denied, or provide enough non-conclusory facts showing that the agency denied an accommodation necessary for him to perform his job. The court did not consider additional accommodation requests raised for the first time in Lee’s objections.

The court dismissed the disparate-treatment claim. Allegations that management prevented Lee from doing his job, assigned him more work than a coworker, and handled his time and leave incorrectly did not, without more, show a materially adverse employment action or connect that action to disability discrimination. The court also dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim because the complaint did not plausibly allege conduct that was objectively severe or pervasive, or a connection between the alleged harassment and Lee’s disability.

The court also dismissed the Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim. The original complaint did not identify who allegedly threatened Lee with reassignment to receptionist work if he filed another workplace discrimination complaint. In his objections, Lee clarified that the statement was made by a union representative, not a Social Security Administration employee. The court held that the alleged statement therefore was not alleged to be retaliatory conduct by Lee’s employer and could not be attributed to the agency for this claim.

Family and Medical Leave Act Claim

The court dismissed Lee’s Family and Medical Leave Act claim. It held that, because Lee was a federal employee, he did not have a private right of action under that statute. The court also noted that the complaint’s allegations about incorrect time and leave and failure to follow leave procedures did not state that Lee exercised or tried to exercise rights protected by the statute. The court did not consider additional leave-related facts raised in the objections.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

The court dismissed Lee’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It adopted the conclusion that the statute does not provide an employment-discrimination cause of action against the federal government because the statutory definition of employer excludes the United States.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act claims because, as a federal employee, Lee could not bring those claims against the defendant under the court’s stated reasoning. As to the remaining Rehabilitation Act claims, the court granted leave to amend, although it expressed doubt that the defects could be corrected. Any amended complaint could not include allegations that were the subject of a prior related proceeding. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in part and modified it in part, and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court directed that any motion for permission to file an amended complaint be submitted by October 30, 2020, with the proposed amended complaint attached.