Bennett v. Hall

Background

Kathleen A. Bennett brought this action without a lawyer against “Nicole R. Hall/Internal Revenue Service.” The court understood the defendant to be Nicole R. Hall, apparently Bennett’s manager or supervisor at the Internal Revenue Service. Bennett alleged that she was a federal employee who normally worked at an IRS office in New York, New York, and that she was qualified to work from home. She alleged that Hall reprimanded her for being absent without leave while she was working from home because of a disability and despite notifications from physicians and reasonable-accommodation specialists. Bennett also alleged that other employees were allowed to work from home, that Hall retaliated because of a prior claim filed with an equal-employment-opportunity officer, and that her pay was reduced by $1,054 and then $1,503 before she was not paid for a later week. She sought backpay, permission to work from home five days per week, a transfer of Hall, restoration of debited annual and sick leave, and removal of disciplinary material from her employment record.

Although Bennett cited the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court construed her disability-related federal claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because the opinion states that a federal employee’s disability-discrimination remedy is under the Rehabilitation Act, not the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court also construed her age-related claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Claims under New York law

The court dismissed Bennett’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law for failure to state a claim. It held that those state and municipal laws do not provide relief for discrimination or retaliation arising from federal employment with the IRS.

Proper defendant

The court dismissed Bennett’s Rehabilitation Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims against Hall for failure to state a claim because those statutes do not authorize discrimination or retaliation claims against individual employees. For federal-employment claims of this type, the court stated that the proper defendant is the head of the relevant federal agency. It granted Bennett leave to amend to name IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel as the sole defendant.

Discrimination claims

The court concluded that Bennett’s complaint did not allege enough facts to state a disability-discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act. The complaint did not clearly establish that Bennett had a disability covered by the statute, that the IRS knew of her disability, that she could perform the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation, or that the IRS had refused to provide the requested accommodation.

The court also concluded that Bennett had not stated an age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She did not allege that she was at least 40 years old when the alleged discrimination occurred, or facts showing that her age was the necessary cause of the employer’s adverse action.

Retaliation claims

The court found that Bennett had not alleged enough facts to state retaliation claims under either the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Rehabilitation Act. She referred to a prior administrative claim involving her manager or supervisor, but did not explain whether she or someone else filed it, when it was filed, why it was filed, or when the alleged discriminatory treatment occurred. She also did not allege facts showing that the prior claim caused the adverse employment actions under the applicable legal standards.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Bennett was representing herself and might be able to state valid federal discrimination or retaliation claims with additional facts, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint; it must repeat any facts or claims Bennett wants the court to consider and identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court encouraged her to attach any administrative decision from the IRS or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concerning the administrative claim she said was filed on or about June 26, 2023.

The court ordered Bennett to submit the amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include the case number. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Bennett failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, it would dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.