Daniels v. Kijakazi

Background

Tyree Daniels, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he was employed by the United States Social Security Administration and transferred to its Manhattan Social Security Card Center in October 2018. He alleged that, between February and May 2019, supervisor Ines Vasquez treated him rudely and unfairly, issued him a reprimand, and placed an unfavorable mid-year review in his personnel records.

Daniels alleged that he had ongoing health issues and that Vasquez considered him disabled. He filed a grievance against Vasquez and later told District Office Manager Eno Ikoli that Vasquez was treating him unfavorably because she perceived him as disabled. Less than ten days later, Vasquez issued the reprimand and mid-year review. The reprimand stated that further misconduct could lead to suspension or removal from federal service and informed Daniels that he could challenge it through the grievance process.

Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Daniels did not file an opposition, but the court still evaluated the allegations under the usual standard and read his complaint liberally because he was proceeding without a lawyer.

Rehabilitation Act disability-discrimination claim

The court dismissed this claim without prejudice. It held that Daniels did not allege enough facts to show that he had a qualifying disability. His references to “ongoing health issues,” the denial of advanced sick leave, and Vasquez’s belief that he was disabled did not identify an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity or otherwise satisfy the statutory definition.

The court also held that Daniels did not adequately allege an adverse employment action or causation for a discrimination claim. A materially adverse employment action generally involves a significant change in employment, such as termination, demotion, reduced pay, or a tangible loss. Daniels alleged a reprimand and unfavorable performance review but did not allege that they caused a tangible loss. He also offered only a conclusory connection between his alleged disability and the employment actions.

Because the court concluded that additional facts might allow Daniels to state a valid claim, it granted him leave to file an amended complaint repleading the Rehabilitation Act disability-discrimination claim.

Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim

The court denied dismissal of this claim. To plead retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must allege protected activity, the employer’s awareness of that activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection between the two.

The court found that Daniels plausibly alleged protected activity and employer awareness. Although his initial grievance described rude, disrespectful, and unfair treatment without expressly identifying disability discrimination, he later told Ikoli that Vasquez treated him unfavorably because she perceived him as disabled and requested an investigation.

The court also found that the written reprimand and unfavorable mid-year review could qualify as materially adverse retaliation at the pleading stage. The reprimand was formal, characterized Daniels’s conduct as violating workplace policies, warned of more severe discipline, and provided a grievance procedure. The court further found a plausible causal connection because the actions occurred fewer than ten days after Daniels requested an investigation and were taken by the supervisor he alleged considered him disabled.

Title VII claim

The court dismissed Daniels’s Title VII claim with prejudice. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, but not disability. Daniels did not allege discrimination or retaliation based on one of those Title VII-protected grounds.

Disposition

The court stated at the outset that the motion was granted in part and denied in part. Its conclusion stated that the motion was “GRANTED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART,” dismissed the Rehabilitation Act discrimination claim without prejudice, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion docket entry.