Moore v. DeJoy

Background

Murdise Moore brought an employment-discrimination action against the Postmaster General. The government asked for permission to brief whether Moore had properly completed the required administrative process for each discrimination claim. It also asked the court to pause discovery, or alternatively restrict it, while the government’s proposed motion to dismiss was considered.

Moore initially contacted the equal employment opportunity office about a December 2, 2017 incident. In her formal complaint, she identified discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, age, religion, retaliation, and disability. She identified two events: being charged 40 hours of absence without leave from December 2 through December 9, 2017, and a supervisor’s January 8, 2018 call to her physician asking about her medical condition.

The Postal Service accepted those two events for investigation. It dismissed a third issue involving a $945.89 demand because it concerned a matter within the Debt Collection Act’s jurisdiction. The agency told Moore that she had to object in writing if she disagreed with the accepted issues and that unrelated issues had to be pursued through established procedures. The opinion states that Moore did not file such a written response or present additional issues through those procedures.

The agency later found no discrimination, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission affirmed that decision. Moore’s amended complaint then alleged “constant harassment,” including statements attributed to Patricia Henry and harassment intended to make Moore retire. The government’s position was that these broader harassment or hostile-work-environment allegations had not been administratively exhausted, while the two issues accepted for investigation had been exhausted. Moore agreed to the proposed briefing schedule but opposed a discovery stay.

Order

The court allowed the defendants to proceed with filing the proposed motion to dismiss and approved the government’s proposed briefing schedule. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss, determine which claims were legally exhausted, or resolve whether discrimination occurred.

The court stayed discovery as to the purportedly non-exhausted claims pending determination of the motion to dismiss. Discovery concerning the concededly exhausted claims could proceed. The court expressly added that discovery was not stayed for material relevant to both the non-exhausted and exhausted claims.

Effect

The order temporarily limited discovery while leaving the proposed exhaustion-related dismissal motion to be decided later. It did not finally dismiss any claim or enter judgment on the employment-discrimination action.