Perkins v. United States Department Of The Treasury

Background

Kimberly R. Perkins worked at the United States Bureau of the Mint beginning in 1987 and later served as an Internal Control Supply Clerk. She alleged that the Treasury Department, the Mint, and the Treasury Secretary discriminated against her, retaliated against her for filing equal-employment complaints, denied reasonable accommodations for her stress and anxiety disorder, created a hostile work environment, and wrongfully terminated her.

The record described disputes involving supervisors, requests to transfer to another department, requests for sick and family-medical leave, absence-without-leave designations, suspensions, an audit-related bonus, a retirement class, and Perkins’s eventual termination. In 2019, after supervisors instructed Perkins to work at her assigned workstation, the Mint proposed removing her for failing to follow those instructions. She later submitted a request for a workplace accommodation, and a supervisor affirmed the removal decision.

Perkins asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and common law. Although her amended complaint referred to disability claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court addressed those employment claims under the Rehabilitation Act because Perkins was a federal employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires a trial or instead permits judgment as a matter of law.

Court’s analysis

Title VII discrimination

The court granted summary judgment on Perkins’s race- and gender-discrimination claim. Perkins relied on the audit bonus, alleged unfair discipline, denied transfers or accommodations, leave decisions, security-related instructions, absence-without-leave designations, and a position she said she was qualified for. The court held that she did not provide enough evidence that similarly situated employees—employees comparable in relevant material respects—were treated more favorably. The evidence did not adequately establish the other employees’ job duties, supervisors, disabilities, reasons for transfers, disciplinary histories, or other relevant characteristics. The court also found that the evidence about the audit bonus and other incidents did not support an inference of race or gender discrimination.

Title VII retaliation

The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim concerning Perkins’s termination. The defendants identified a progressive disciplinary process and Perkins’s repeated failure to follow supervisory instructions as the reason for the termination. The court held that Perkins did not provide sufficient evidence that this explanation was a pretext, meaning a cover for retaliation. The timing of the termination after an equal-employment complaint could support an initial retaliation claim, but the court held that timing alone was insufficient at the stage where Perkins had to show that retaliation was the real reason for the termination.

Rehabilitation Act

The court granted summary judgment on Perkins’s disability-discrimination claims. Regarding transfers, the court held that Perkins did not show that a vacant, suitable position existed when she requested reassignment. It also held that the record did not show that the defendants refused her formal accommodation request: instead, the Mint told her that the medical documentation was insufficient and explained that she could work with an equal-employment specialist to identify the needed information. The record did not show that she provided additional documentation or continued that process.

The court also rejected the theory that denied sick leave was a reasonable accommodation because Perkins did not show how the requested leave would have enabled her to perform her job’s essential functions after returning. The court found no disability-accommodation denial based on the initial response to her family-medical-leave request because the Mint requested additional information and approved the leave after receiving it. The court further held that Perkins did not provide enough evidence to establish what her earlier seating requests involved or how they would accommodate her disability. As to the 2019 seating issue, the court held that she could not show that she made an accommodation request that the defendants denied before her termination.

For disability-based disparate treatment, the court again found that Perkins had not shown that comparable nondisabled employees received more favorable treatment. The court also noted that Perkins testified that one allegedly more difficult assignment was retaliation for her equal-employment complaints, rather than an action taken because of her disability.

Age discrimination

The court granted summary judgment on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. Perkins alleged that younger employees received transfers or positions that she did not receive. The court held that she did not provide sufficient evidence that those employees were similarly situated or that the circumstances supported an inference of age discrimination.

Hostile work environment

The court granted summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Perkins identified sporadic incidents over six years, including supervisors allegedly treating her unfairly, assigning her extra work, marking her absent without authorization, and human-resources personnel acting rudely or aggressively. The court held that these incidents were not sufficiently frequent or severe and that Perkins did not identify an incident tied to her race, age, or disability.

New York State Human Rights Law

The court granted summary judgment on the New York State Human Rights Law claim. The court agreed with the defendants that, as a federal employee alleging employment discrimination against a federal agency, Perkins’s claims could be brought only under the applicable federal statutes.

Wrongful termination

The court granted summary judgment on the common-law wrongful-termination claim. Perkins did not address this claim in her opposition to summary judgment, and the court stated that New York law does not recognize the claim as presented. The court also found that the claim failed for the same reasons as the federal discrimination claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 87 and to terminate the action. The opinion states the outcome as a grant of summary judgment; it does not separately state that the claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.