UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JENNIFER CLARICE BLEDSOE BLACK,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 22-1873 (BAH)
v.
Judge Beryl A. Howell
ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN,
Administrator, Small Business
Administration,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Jennifer Clarice Bledsoe Black initiated this suit against defendant Isabella
Casillas Guzman, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) in her official
capacity, alleging claims of gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., retaliation under Family
Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., 5 U.S.C. § 6381,
et seq., and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1; see also generally Am.
Compl., ECF No. 4 (alleging the same causes of action). Defendant now seeks dismissal of all
claims, see Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 9 (“Def.’s Mot.”); see also Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot.
to Dismiss, ECF No. 9-1 (“Def.’s Mem.”), on grounds that plaintiff lacks a private right of action
to assert claims under the ADA and FMLA, and her Title VII claims rely on unexhausted or
otherwise non-actionable conduct. See Def.’s Mem. at 1–2. For the reasons discussed below,
defendant’s motion is granted.
1
I. BACKGROUND
The factual and procedural background of the instant matter is summarized below.
A. Factual Background
As set forth in the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff, an African American woman, was
employed at SBA from October 2013, until she “involuntarily resigned” in June 2021. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 9-11, 37. Most recently, her position was as an Underwriting Marketing Specialist at
SBA’s Office of Surety Guarantees (“OSG”), where Ernest Lloyd Knott and Peter Charles Gibbs,
both male, were her first and second level supervisors, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.
1. Plaintiff’s Two EEO Complaints
In April of 2019, plaintiff alleges that Knott and Gibbs told her that she was “not doing her
job.” Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Even after receiving that criticism, plaintiff took on additional work
responsibilities for a coworker who was out of the office, prompting, on about June 24, 2019,
Knott to raise his voice after learning of probable delays in work due to plaintiff’s heightened
workload. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff asserts she experienced a panic attack and asked to go home for
health reasons, and, after initially granting this request, Knott later denied her sick leave and
allegedly yelled, “go back to your desk and do your job, leave denied.” Id. (quotation marks
omitted). Around that time, plaintiff also made an accommodation request to get additional days
of telework due to an unspecified health issue, which request was also denied. Id. ¶ 18.
On July 30, 2019, a previous notice to terminate Plaintiff’s telework agreement was
rescinded via a short email. Id. ¶ 19. Supervisors’ concerns about her work productivity
apparently persisted, however. On September 3, 2019, plaintiff says she was issued a letter
warning her of unreasonable delays in carrying out her assignments, and, despite plaintiff’s report
of her supervisors’ complaints in April about her work productivity, id. ¶ 15, she asserts that the
letter was issued without any meeting or other explanation for this warning, id. ¶ 20. Two weeks
2
later, on September 19, 2019, management directed staff to monitor monthly scripted webinars put
on by plaintiff, allegedly causing her distress and performance paralysis. Id. ¶ 21. According to
plaintiff, only one of her unnamed female coworkers had her webinars similarly monitored, while
no male employee was subject to such monitoring. Id.
On October 17, 2019, Gibbs terminated plaintiff’s established teleworking schedule,
explaining that he wanted to “put eyes on [plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff says that only one other
co-worker, also female, had her teleworking agreement similarly terminated and that no male
employees had ever had a teleworking agreement terminated. Id. (“Indeed, on January 28, 2020,
Jermaine Perry, a Management Analyst in Plaintiff’s office asked for telework and Mr. Gibbs
approved it without any problems. On the other hand, another female co-worker, Shelly Ross, also
had her telework agreement terminated by Mr. Gibbs.”). Around the same time, plaintiff also
received an “unacceptable” performance rating of 1 out of 5, which rating plaintiff contests as
baseless, noting her overall performance rating of 4 out of 5 (exceeds expectations) up to that point.
Id. ¶¶ 15, 24. In the same Fall 2019 period that her supervisors expressed concern about her work
productivity, in October and November of 2019, plaintiff was “pulled from” two “work-related
event[s],” described as a “Miami event” and a “Maryland business summit,” and replaced by a
male coworker at the Maryland event. Id. ¶ 25. She alleges that a male coworker replaced another
female at a work-related event in the past, whereas no male coworker had ever been similarly
replaced at a work-related event. Id.
On December 6, 2019 and on September 8, 2020, plaintiff filed two complaints with
defendant’s “Office of Diversity, Inclusion & Civil Rights” (“EEO”), alleging sex-based
discrimination and harassment that created a hostile work environment in the first, and
discrimination based on retaliation in the second, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 4-7. The first EEO
3
complaint, alleging sex-based discrimination and harassment, which purportedly created a hostile
work environment, id. ¶¶ 4-5, relied solely on the suspension of her telework schedule and being
pulled from the two work events. Id. ¶¶ 15-18; see also Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1., Black v.
Guzman, EEOC No. 570-2020-01718X, Joint Stip. Of Issues (Feb. 25, 2022), ECF No. 9-2 (a joint
stipulation filed by plaintiff and SBA, agreeing that the sole alleged bases for discrimination were
the suspension of plaintiff’s telework schedule and being pulled from a work event). 1 As support
for her second EEO complaint, plaintiff alleged that, beginning in May of 2020, Knott and Gibbs
engaged in “verbal abuse” against her that involved use of profanity on at least five instances,
including Knott telling plaintiff to “shut the fuck up” in one instance and, in another instance,
telling her “you need to find another job.” Id. ¶ 28. 2 Plaintiff complained to the Office of Hearing
Appeals, the Administrator, the Human Capital Officer and the Deputy Human Capital Officer,
the Associate Administrator of the Office of Capital Access, the OIG Office, the Office of Special
Counsel, and the EEO Office—all to no avail. Id.
2. Alleged Conduct after Plaintiff Filed Her Second EEO Complaint
In October of 2020, plaintiff was allegedly told to “provide daily updates of her email-
completed assignments,” after she took thirteen days to respond to an email, but complains that
she was the only person in her position required to provide such updates. Id. ¶ 27. In December
2020, plaintiff received a letter of reprimand for a failure to follow instructions, though she asserts
1
The First Amended Complaint expressly refers to her administrative EEO complaint and the allegations
contained therein, see Am. Compl. ¶ 5, and thus may be considered here without converting the instant motion to
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See E.E.O.C. v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624
(D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Hudson v. Children’s Nat. Med. Ctr., 645 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 n.5 (D.D.C. 2009) (“[T]he
Amended Complaint makes specific reference to the EEO Complaint. . . . Accordingly, the court may consider the
EEO Complaint without converting the defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”);
Marcelus v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 540 F. Supp. 2d 231, 235 n.5 (D.D.C. 2008) (same).
2
Plaintiff alleges that Knott and Gibbs “were verbally abusive to [her],” Am. Compl. ¶ 28, though she only
quotes specific allegedly verbally abusive statements made by Knotts, not Gibbs, id.
4
she was “well in compliance with the office-wide guidelines on timeliness and application
processing.” Id. ¶ 29. Several months later, on March 23, 2021, plaintiff was subject to a
“Performance Improvement Plan” (“PIP”) issued by Knott, under the direction of Gibbs, allegedly
“with the intent to terminate her in 30 days after completion of the 90-day performance plan.” Id.
¶ 30. During the period when the PIP was in place, plaintiff’s multiple requests for leave were
denied, including requests for administrative leave for an appointment to obtain her second
COVID vaccination (denied March 29, 2021), for three (3) hours of sick leave for a doctor’s
appointment (denied April 26, 2021), for advanced annual leave (denied May 18, 2021), and for
FMLA sick leave (denied May 19, 2021). Id. ¶¶ 31-36. Finally, in May of 2021, plaintiff alleges
that she was subjected to unspecified non-sexual harassment by Knott during telephone calls and
at meetings, thus creating a hostile work environment. Id. ¶ 34. She filed no EEO complaint citing
any of this post-September 2020 conduct allegedly occurring after the filing, in September 2020,
of her second EEO complaint. See generally id.
B. Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges that she “involuntarily resigned” from SBA on June 7, 2021, id. ¶ 37, and
initiated the instant lawsuit on June 29, 2022, see Compl. The operative First Amended Complaint,
filed August 9, 2022, asserts four claims: (1) gender discrimination in the form of disparate
treatment, in violation of Title VII (Count I); (2) retaliation for filing her first EEO complaint, in
violation of Title VII (Count II); (3) retaliation in the form of denying her sick leave requests, in
violation of the FMLA (Count III); and (4) failure to accommodate her reasonable requests to
telework, in violation of the ADA (Count IV). 3 See generally Am. Compl. Defendant’s pending
motion to dismiss is now ripe for resolution.
3
Plaintiff is an African American woman, but her Title VII discrimination claim is based solely on her gender.
See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39-47.
5
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “[a]
plaintiff need not make ‘detailed factual allegations,’” but the “complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” VoteVets
Action Fund v. United States Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 992 F.3d 1097, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A facially plausible claim pleads facts that
are not “‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability” but that “allow[] the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007)); see also Rudder v.
Williams, 666 F.3d 790, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Consequently, “[a] complaint survives a motion to
dismiss even ‘[i]f there are two alternative explanations, one advanced by [the] defendant and the
other advanced by [the] plaintiff, both of which are plausible.’” VoteVets Action Fund, 992 F.3d
at 1104 (quoting Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2015))
(alteration in original).
In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must consider the whole complaint,
accepting all factual allegations as true, “even if doubtful in fact.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see
also Atchley v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 22 F.4th 204, 210 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Courts do not, however,
“assume the truth of legal conclusions, nor do [they] ‘accept inferences that are unsupported by
the facts set out in the complaint.’” Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (alteration
in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 732
(D.C. Cir. 2007)).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s FMLA and ADA claims (Counts III and IV) for
lack of a cause of action and of the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims (Counts I and
6
II) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and otherwise relying on non-actionable conduct.
These arguments are addressed in turn.
A. Count III: FMLA Claim
Plaintiff claims defendant violated her FMLA rights by retaliating against her for
requesting time off for sick leave. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 62-72. Defendant contends that plaintiff
lacks a private right of action under the FMLA because she was a federal employee with greater
than 12 months of service at the time of her involuntary resignation. Def.’s Mem. at 5–6.
Defendant is right.
The FMLA “entitles eligible employees to take unpaid leave for family and medical
reasons.” Gordon v. U.S. Capitol Police, 778 F.3d 158, 160 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Employees are
covered by either Title I or Title II of the FMLA: “Title I ‘governs private sector and federal
employees with less than 12 months of service, and Title II pertains to federal employees with
more than 12 months of service.’” Manga v. Carranza, No. 1:18-CV-00437 (TNM), 2020 WL
1451584, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2020) (quoting Chandler v. Bernanke, 531 F. Supp. 2d 193, 201
(D.D.C. 2008)). While Title I employees have a private right of action under the statute, see 29
U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2), “Title II contains no analogous provision,” Manga, 2020 WL 1451584, at *5
(quoting Russell v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 191 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 5 U.S.C.
§§ 6381–6387)), meaning that Title II plaintiffs do not have a private right of action under the
FMLA. Id. at *5–6; accord Coulibaly v. Blinken, No. 14-cv-712, 2022 WL 3976806, at *2 n.4
(D.D.C. Sept. 1, 2022) (“Unlike a Title I employee, a federal Title II employee does not have a
private right of action under the FMLA.”); Hartzler v. Mayorkas, No. 20-CV-3802 (GMH), 2022
WL 15419995, at *40 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2022) (same); Chandler v. Bernanke, 531 F. Supp. 2d 193,
201 (D.D.C. 2008) (same).
7
As the Fourth Circuit explained, the rationale for interpreting the statute this way is
straightforward: “Title II does not contain an express provision for a private right of action to
enforce the leave rights there granted[] . . . [and] no implied right of action to remedy violations
of Title II exists either.” Mann v. Haigh, 120 F.3d 34, 37 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Russell, 191
F.3d at 1018 (“The absence of express statutory authorization for such suits under Title II would
seem to bar [the plaintiff’s] FMLA claims because it is axiomatic that suits against the government
are barred by sovereign immunity absent an unequivocally expressed waiver.”). While the D.C.
Circuit has not opined on this question, every circuit court presented with this issue has held that
Title II employees do not have a private right of action under the FMLA. See Mann, 120 F.3d at
37; Russell, 191 F.3d at 1019 (“We agree with the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning and similarly
conclude that the absence of an express waiver of the government's sovereign immunity in Title II
of the FMLA bars private suits for violations of its provisions.”); Cavicchi v. Sec’y of Treasury,
No. 04-10451, 2004 WL 4917357, at *6 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2004) (“We agree with [the Fourth and
Ninth] circuits that the absence of an express authorization precludes [the appellant’s] FMLA
claim for retaliation[.]”); Burg v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 387 F. App’x 237, 240
(3d Cir. 2010) (same).
Here, plaintiff is undisputedly a Title II employee under the FMLA, and she fails to explain
how her FMLA claim can be sustained even though she lacks a private right of action under the
statute. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot to Dismiss at 14–16, ECF No. 12 (failing to respond to
defendant’s argument that plaintiff lacks a private right of action under the FMLA). Her FMLA
claim must therefore be dismissed.
B. Count IV: Plaintiff’s ADA Claim
To support her ADA claim, in Count IV, plaintiff alleges that she informed Knott about
her disability in June 2019 and defendant nevertheless refused to grant reasonable
8
accommodations, by denying her telework and sick leave, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 81-88, thereby violating
the ADA, id. ¶¶ 77-84. Defendant correctly points out, however, that the ADA specifically
excludes “the United States” from the definition of “employer” and that “the Rehabilitation Act,
29 U.S.C. §§ 791, et seq., is the ‘exclusive remedy for employment discrimination based on a
disability for federal employees,’” Def.’s Mem. at 6–7 (quoting Raines v. Dep’t of Just., 424 F.
Supp. 2d 60, 64 (D.D.C. 2006)).
Plaintiff concedes this point, Pl.’s Opp’n at 15, and requests an “opportunity to amend her
Complaint to explain the nature of the reasonable accommodation she requested,” id. The problem
with this request to amend her complaint another time is that she has missed her 21-day window
to amend her pleading by right, see FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(B), and she has yet to move for leave
to file a second amended complaint, id. To be sure, courts “should freely give leave when justice
so requires,” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2), but Rule 15(a)(2) “applies only when the plaintiff actually
has moved for leave to amend the complaint; absent a motion, there is nothing to be freely given.”
Schmidt v. United States, 749 F.3d 1064, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Belizan v. Hershon, 434
F.3d 579, 582 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). Without a motion for leave to amend, plaintiff’s ADA claim
must be dismissed.
C. Plaintiff’s Title VII Claims
Plaintiff asserts Title VII claims for both sex discrimination and for retaliation, both of
which are required to be administratively exhausted before serving as a basis for a federal lawsuit.
Here, the only allegations that were timely administratively exhausted—(1) the suspension of
plaintiff’s telework benefits; (2) plaintiff being removed from work events in October and
November of 2019; and (3) plaintiff being subjected to profane language in about five incidents in
9
May 2020—can support her Title VII claims. 4 As detailed below, based on these allegations,
plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims must be dismissed. First, plaintiff has
not plead a valid Title VII discrimination claim because her alleged removal from work-related
events were not an adverse employment actions, and she has not sufficiently alleged that her
telework benefits were suspended because of her sex. Second, plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim
fails because being subject to a handful of instances of profane language, even by supervisors,
does not satisfy the “materially adverse action” element to support her claim.
1. Unexhausted Allegations Cannot Support Plaintiff’s Title VII Claims.
Plaintiff’s Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation claims are predicated on a variety
of allegations in the First Amended Complaint, but plaintiff failed to raise many of those
allegations in her two EEO complaints. Defendant correctly contends that plaintiff’s allegations
must be limited to those raised in the EEO complaints, and any other allegations are unexhausted.
Def.’s Mem. at 8–10.
As a federal employee, plaintiff may file a Title VII action in federal court only after timely
exhausting administrative remedies before the EEOC. Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56, 65 (D.C.
Cir. 2010); accord Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “The EEOC
filing requirement” is meant “to give prompt notice to the employer” of the claim and facilitate
resolution of the issues. Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 514 F.3d 1365, 1376 (D.C. Cir
2008) (quoting Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 398 (1982)); see also Bowden,
106 F.3d at 437 (“Complainants must timely exhaust these administrative remedies before bringing
their claims to court.”); Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 170 F. Supp. 3d 164, 175 (D.D.C.
4
The First Amended Complaint is unclear whether the profanity allegations relate to either the Title VII
discrimination claim or the Title VII retaliation claim, or both, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39-72, but since plaintiff did not
raise the issue of her supervisors use of profane language until her second EEO complaint for retaliation, presumably
this allegation is intended as evidentiary support for only the retaliation claim. See Def.’s Mem. at 12 (making this
observation).
10
2016) (“A federal employee who seeks to sue her agency for discrimination under Title VII must
. . . timely exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit.”).
Moreover, exhaustion inquiries focus on each discrete discriminatory act that is alleged by
an employee. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110–11 (2002). “[D]iscrete
discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in
timely filed [administrative] charges.” Id. at 113. Accordingly, a Title VII complainant “must
timely exhaust administrative remedies for each discrete act alleged[,]’ even if the acts are
related.” Mount v. Johnson, 36 F. Supp. 3d 74, 84 (D.D.C. 2014) (Jackson, K.B., J.) (quoting
Laughlin v. Holder, 923 F. Supp. 2d 204, 209 (D.D.C. 2013)) (emphasis in original); accord
Heavans v. Dodaro, No. CV 22-836 (BAH), 2022 WL 17904237, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2022).
With respect to timing, a federal employee must alert an EEO counselor of alleged discrimination
withing forty-five days of the alleged discriminatory conduct occurring. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.105(a)(1).
Many of the allegations set out in the First Amended Complaint were not included, or
exhausted, in the first and second EEO complaints and thus may not support plaintiff’s Title VII
claims. For example, the first EEO complaint, filed on December 6, 2019, described only the
October 17, 2019, suspension of plaintiff’s telework schedule, and the October 30, 2019, removal
of plaintiff from a work-related event. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15-18; see also Joint Stip. Of Issues.
While those incidents were timely raised in an EEO complaint, the following incidents alleged in
the First Amended Complaint were not timely raised forty-five days after their occurrence and are
missing from this first EEO complaint: the October 2019 “unacceptable” performance rating (id.
¶ 24), the monitoring of her webinars in September 2019 (id. ¶ 21), the letter of warning for delays
11
in completing her work (id. ¶ 20), and the denial of her sick leave and telework requests for her
panic attack in June 2019 (id. ¶¶ 16-18).
Plaintiff’s second EEO complaint, filed on September 8, 2020, alleged discrimination
based on retaliation, citing several instances in which her supervisors used profane language in
May of 2020. See id. ¶¶ 6, 28. Alleged conduct occurring after September 8, 2020, however,
cannot form the basis of plaintiff’s Title VII claims because they were not timely raised forty-five
days after their occurrence in a EEO complaint, including: the alleged requirement to provide
updates of her work in October of 2020 (id. ¶ 27), the letter of reprimand for failure to follow
instructions in December of 2020 (id. ¶ 29), being placed on a PIP in March of 2021 (id. ¶ 30), the
denials of leave in April and May of 2021 (id. ¶¶ 33-36), and her ultimate resignation from the
Agency in June of 2021 (id. ¶ 37). Given that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies
with respect to any of this above alleged conduct, each of these discrete acts cannot form the basis
of plaintiff’s Title VII claims.
Plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to raise much of the alleged conduct set out in the
Amended Complaint in either EEO complaint. Instead, she asserts that she may seek Title VII
redress for “discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation that had not been separately exhausted
but were ‘sufficiently related’ to a properly exhausted claim,” “pursuant to the ‘continuing
violations theory[.]” Pl.’s Opp’n at 7 (quoting Sussman v. Tanoue, 39 F. Supp. 2d 13, 21 (D.D.C.
1999)). Alternatively, plaintiff asserts that she “need not exhaust her administrative remedies for
the claim based on retaliation when that retaliation claim arises after she made her initial contact
with a Counselor.” Id. (citing Turner v. District of Columbia, 383 F. Supp. 2d 157, 178 (D.D.C.
2005)).
12
Neither of plaintiff’s arguments withstands scrutiny. As defendant points out, plaintiff’s
arguments rest on abrogated and unpersuasive caselaw. Def.’s Reply Supp. Mot. to Dismiss at 3–
5, ECF No. 14. First, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the “continuing violations theory” in
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, holding that “[e]ach discriminatory act
starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act.” 536 U.S. at 113. Second, the district court
case of Turner v. District of Columbia is non-binding and is not persuasive. As explained in
Kennedy v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, “[t]he D.C. Circuit in Payne [v. Salazar,
619 F.3d 56 (D.C. Cir. 2010),] left open the question whether, after Morgan, each new discrete
discriminatory act must be filed with the EEOC, or whether, according to a pre-Morgan line of
D.C. Circuit cases, any unexhausted Title VII claim may be eligible for judicial adjudication,
without the necessity of separate administrative processing, if it is within the scope of the prior
EEO investigation, as ‘reasonably related’ to the filed charge.” 139 F. Supp. 3d 48, 58 (D.D.C.
2015) (Howell, J.). This Court acknowledged that “[w]hile a minority view on this Court is that
the ‘reasonably related’ test for unexhausted claims, as set out in Park v. Howard University, 71
F.3d 904, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1995), survives Morgan, the majority view has interpreted Morgan to
require exhaustion for all discrete acts of retaliation after an administrative charge is filed,
regardless of any relationship that exists between those discrete claims and any others.” Id. at 59
(quotation marks omitted). This Court has previously, and does so again here, adopt the majority
view. See Smith v. Lynch, 115 F. Supp. 3d 5, 20 (D.D.C. 2015) (Howell, J.) (“This Court declines
the invitation and has already held that the plaintiff was required to exhaust her administrative
remedies as to the post–2008 incidents, conforming to the majority view.”).
Plaintiff offers no persuasive reason why the majority view should be eschewed, see Pl.’s
Opp’n at 7, nor explains why the discrete acts missing from her EEO complaints were so omitted.
13
To the extent that plaintiff’s Title VII claims are predicated on these unexhausted alleged actions,
defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted as to those incidents. Accordingly, the only discrete
actions alleged that have been properly exhausted are: (1) the suspension of plaintiff’s telework
benefits; (2) plaintiff being removed from work events in October and November of 2019; and (3)
that she was subject to profane language in about five incidents in May 2020. Whether plaintiff
can state a claim for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII based on this conduct is
considered next.
2. Count I: Plaintiff’s Title VII Discrimination Claim
Title VII provides that all “personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for
employment . . . shall be made free from any discrimination,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(a), and further
prohibits retaliation against employees for opposing an unlawful employment practice, id.
§ 2000e–3(a)l; see also Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Barnes v.
Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 988 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (explaining that Title VII places the same restrictions
on federal agencies as it does on private employers). Under Title VII, “the two essential elements
of a discrimination claim are that (i) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (ii)
because of the plaintiff’s race, color, religion, sex, [or] national origin.” Baloch v. Kempthorne,
550 F.3d 1191, 1196 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also Mawakana v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of the D.C.,
926 F.3d 859, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[W]e ask whether . . . a reasonable jury could find [the
plaintiff] was denied tenure because of his race[.]”) (citing Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1196). “Typically,
a materially adverse action in the workplace involves ‘a significant change in employment status,
such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities,
14
or a decision causing significant change in benefits.’” Bridgeforth v. Jewell, 721 F.3d 661, 663
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 5
To find an adverse employment action, the D.C. Circuit, until recently, required courts to
conclude that “a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm” based on “materially
adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or future
employment opportunities.” Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In
Chambers v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit revisited the requirement of an “objectively
tangible harm” to hold that an employee’s forced transfer or denial of a transfer request because
of that employee’s protected status constitutes an adverse employment action, despite a lack of
“objectively tangible harm” like economic impact. 35 F.4th 870, 874–75 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Instead, “[o]nce it has been established that an employer has discriminated against an employee
with respect to that employee’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a
protected characteristic, the analysis is complete.” Id. Despite rejecting the “objectively tangible
harm” requirement, Chambers did acknowledge that “the phrase [‘terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment’] is not without limits” because “not everything that happens at a workplace affects
an employee’s ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment[,]’” 35 F.4th at 874. Moreover,
actionable retaliation claims “are [still] limited to those where an employer causes ‘material
adversity,’ not ‘trivial harms,’” Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151, 161 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (emphasis
omitted) (quoting Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 68), a principle that Chambers left undisturbed, see
35 F.4th at 876. 6
5
Defendant cites to the definition of “personnel actions” in the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”), 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(a)(2)(xii). Defendant, however, does not explain the relevance of § 2302(a)(2)(xii), nor cites any caselaw
illuminating that statutory provision’s bearing in evaluating whether a plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action
for the purpose of Title VII discrimination claims.
6
Notwithstanding acknowledgment that trivial harms within the workplace are not actionable under Title VII,
the Chambers Court expressly declined to reach the question of whether de minimis harms could satisfy the new
15
Plaintiff’s allegation that she was “pulled from” two work events in a two-month period
over her lengthy employment at SBA, fails to satisfy the Chambers standard because she fails to
explain how this action affected any terms or conditions of her employment in a manner any
different than any regular re-assignment of work among employees. See Am. Compl. ¶ 25.
Plaintiff elaborates in opposition briefing that participation in these events were “a part of the
essential function of her job” and “affected her compensation, benefits, and likelihood of
promotion.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 13. As support for this otherwise conclusory assertion, she cites to
“Ex. A, pp. 624–625,” id., which is an exhibit comprised of three pages, a one-page excerpt of the
investigative report for plaintiff’s first EEO complaint and a two-page excerpt of the transcript of
her interview with an EEO counselor on June 16, 2020, that fail to discuss or mention the Miami
event and the Maryland business summit, but rather proffer plaintiff’s explanations for why she
believed her supervisors were “retaliatory,” and how her “performance rating” caused her
“emotional distress” and affected her “future promotability.” See generally Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. A,
ECF No. 12-3. Merely disagreeing with, or even being upset by, a supervisor’s decision simply
does not amount to affecting the terms or conditions of employment, particularly with the
contextual information provided here that plaintiff’s apparent reassignment from attending two
events occurred in a limited two-month period over an extensive work history, when her own
allegations suggest that her supervisors viewed her work productivity in the same period as subpar.
standard, or if the principle de minimis non curat lex—the law is not concerned with trifles—remains a part of Title
VII, as this principle is generally presumed incorporated in every statute absent an indication to the contrary. See id.
at 875 (citing Wisc. Dep’t of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214, 231 (1992)). Defendant argues that,
even post-Chambers, “trivial, de minimis harms” are not actionable to support Title VII discrimination claims,
relegating to this “trivial” category plaintiff’s allegations of suspension of telework and being pulled from two work
events. Def.’s Mem. at 11–12. Plaintiff counters that these harms negatively affected the terms, conditions, or
privileges of plaintiff’s employment to the same extent that the denial of a transfer request did in Chambers, and thus
are actionable under the revised Chambers standard. Pl.’s Opp’n at 12–14. Despite the ink spilled by the parties on
this issue, delving into whether Title VII incorporates the principle of de minimis non curat lex is not necessary here.
16
Even post-Chambers, plaintiff cannot avoid dismissal of her Title VII discrimination claim
by baldly stating that the alleged employment action adversely affected the terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment without proffering supporting facts or allegations, as judges on this
Court have similarly held. See, e.g., Garza v. Blinken, No. 21-CV-02770 (APM), 2023 WL
2239352, at *5 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2023) (holding that, under Chambers, a “proposed letter of
reprimand” issued to plaintiff failed to state a claim for an adverse employment action under Title
II because the “complaint [was] devoid of any facts suggesting that the proposed letter affected the
terms and conditions of [the plaintiff’s] employment,” and instead merely “assert[ed] in a
conclusory manner that the letter of proposed reprimand had a material effect on the terms and
conditions of her employment”) (quotation marks omitted); Heavans, 2022 WL 17904237, at *8
(holding that plaintiff’s allegations that she received “poor performance ratings” and “her
reinstatement of a previously discontinued project under a different supervisor . . . did not
adversely affect the conditions of [her] employment, though these actions undoubtedly caused
tribulations”). In short, plaintiff fails to provide any detail about any impact on her compensation,
benefits, and promotion opportunities resulting from being “pulled from” the two events cited and
instead merely provides “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements,” which “do not suffice” at the pleading stage and cannot sustain
plaintiff's sex discrimination claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 7
7
Even if plaintiff’s arguments in her opposition brief could be accepted as plausible reasons why her being
pulled from two work events affected her compensation, benefits, and likelihood of promotion, “only the facts alleged
in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which” judicial
notice may be taken may be considered “[i]n determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim[.]” St. Francis
Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d at 624; see also Doe #1 v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., 554 F. Supp. 3d 75, 101 n. 13
(D.D.C. 2021), reconsideration denied, No. CV 20-1558 (JDB), 2022 WL 4182223 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2022)
(“[P]laintiff[] ‘may not amend [her] complaint through an opposition brief.’”) (quoting Sai v. Transport. Sec. Admin.,
326 F.R.D. 31, 33 (D.D.C. 2018)). The First Amended Complaint fails to allege that plaintiff being removed from
these work events at all adversely affected her employment, so these allegations in plaintiff’s opposition cannot sustain
her Title VII discrimination claim.
17
By contrast to her allegations about being “pulled from” two work-related events, the
alleged suspension of plaintiff’s telework benefits amounts to an adverse change to plaintiff’s
“terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” Chambers, 35 F.4th at 876, because the
revocation of those benefits forced her to work in person instead of remotely. See Heavans, 2022
WL 17904237, at *8 (holding that plaintiff’s alleged adverse actions—“the revocation of his
flexible work schedule and eventual reassignment to a different department in a non-managerial
position”—were “inarguably major changes to the conditions of his employment”). 8 Yet, with
respect to the revocation of her telework benefits, plaintiff’s claim must nonetheless be dismissed
for a different reason: She has failed to plead any facts that would suggest those benefits were
terminated because of her gender. See Walker, 798 F.3d at 1091 (“To state a prima facie case of
discrimination, a plaintiff must allege she is part of a protected class under Title VII, she suffered
a cognizable adverse employment action, and the action gives rise to an inference of
discrimination.”) (emphasis added).
One way a plaintiff can show that an adverse employment action she suffered gives rise to
“an inference of discrimination” “is by demonstrating that she was treated differently from
similarly situated employees who are not part of the protected class.” George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d
405, 412 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Presumably, plaintiff seeks to make this argument by substantiating
her claim that her telework benefits were suspended because of her sex with her allegation that the
telework agreement for a male “Management Analyst” named “Jermaine Perry” was “approved,”
while her and a female co-worker’s “telework agreement [was] terminated[.]” See Am. Compl.
8
The cases that defendant relies upon to argue that the suspension of telework benefits are not adverse actions,
see Def.’s Mem. at 11–12, are inapposite both because these cases were decided pre-Chambers, and since they concern
the denial of a request for changes in work schedule, not an effective change in plaintiff’s existing work schedule.
See, e.g., Beckham v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 736 F. Supp. 2d 130, 149 (D.D.C. 2010) (“Being denied the ability
to work from home on, at most, three occasions is a minor annoyance, not an adverse action.”); Bright v. Copps, 828
F. Supp. 2d 130, 148–49 (D.D.C. 2011) (“It is therefore not enough for [the plaintiff] to merely claim that she was
denied a desired reassignment to another location.”).
18
¶ 22. To show that plaintiff and Perry are “similarly situated,” however, plaintiff must evince that
“all of the relevant aspects of her employment situation were nearly identical to those of the male
employee.” Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255, 261 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (quotation
marks omitted).
Critically missing from plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, however, is any allegation
that she was similarly situated to Perry. The only information provided is that Perry was a
“Management Analyst,” Am. Compl. ¶ 22, while plaintiff, by contrast, was a “Underwriting
Marketing Specialist,” id. ¶ 11, so she and Perry did not occupy the same positions and were likely
not performing the same duties. Failure to show that a similarly situated employee outside the
same protected class was treated differently generally warrants dismissal of a Title VII disparate
treatment discrimination claim. See, e.g., Harris v. Mayorkas, No. 21-CV-1083 (GMH), 2022 WL
3452316, at *11 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2022) (dismissing complaint because the plaintiff “offer[ed] no
facts to back [ ] up” her claim that “similarly situated co-workers outside of the her race were not
treated in the manner in which she was”) (cleaned up); Beaulieu v. Barr, No. 15-cv-896, 2019 WL
5579968, at *4 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2019) (dismissing Title VII discrimination claim because the
plaintiff failed to “identify any ‘comparator’ employees who were treated differently”); Budik v.
Howard Univ. Hosp., 986 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2013) (similar). Without any allegations
showing that plaintiff and Perry (or another male) performed “nearly identical” duties, see
Holbrook, 196 F.3d at 261, or any other evidence to show that plaintiff’s telework benefits were
suspended because of her gender, plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination claim must be dismissed.
3. Count II: Plaintiff’s Title VII Retaliation Claim
“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a [Title VII] claimant must show that: (1) she
engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered a materially adverse action by [his]
employer; and (3) a causal connection existed between the two.” Wiley, 511 F.3d at 155 (quotation
19
marks omitted). Given that the statutorily protected activity at issue here is the filing of plaintiff’s
first EEO complaint, the only alleged retaliatory conduct that is exhausted and at issue are the five
instances of profanity and verbal abuse that plaintiff experienced thereafter. See Am. Compl. ¶ 28.
Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff engaged in a statutorily protected activity by
pursuing her first administrative EEO complaint, but she contends that plaintiff’s supervisors’ use
of profanity, “without more, constitute[s] the ‘simple lack of good manners that are not actionable
as retaliation.’” Def.’s Mem. at 13 (quoting Paschal v. District of Columbia, 65 F. Supp. 3d 172,
180 (D.D.C. 2014). 9 In other words, defendant argues that being subjected to five instances of
profanity and harsh language fails to satisfy the “materially adverse action” element for Title VII
retaliation claims. Id. at 16–17. Defendant is right.
The Supreme Court has made clear that Title VII is not a “general civility code” that makes
actionable “the ordinary tribulations of the workplace,” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S.
775, 788 (1998) (quotation marks omitted), and “petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack
of good manners” are not actionable as retaliation, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548
U.S. 53, 68 (2006). Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has held that even “disproportionate” “profanity-
laden yelling” may constitute the garden variety “sporadic verbal altercations or disagreements
[that] do not qualify as adverse actions for purposes of retaliation claims.” Baloch v. Kempthorne,
550 F.3d 1191, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Here, the five instances of alleged verbal abuse—which
included, for example, Knott telling plaintiff to “shut the fuck up,” Am. Compl. ¶ 28 (quotation
marks omitted)—while wholly inappropriate, amount to no more than “sporadic verbal
9
Contrary to defendant’s assertion that plaintiff fails to “allege, in fact, anything at all supporting a connection
between the alleged profanity and either her gender or her prior action,” Def.’s Mem. at 13, “[i]t is well established
that evidence of a pattern of antagonism following closely on the heels of protected activity and related to the
challenged employment action may establish the causation element of a Title VII plaintiff’s” retaliation claim, Allen
v. Johnson, 795 F.3d 34, 46 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
20
altercations” and “petty slights” that fail to satisfy the “materially adverse” action element. See
Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199; Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. at 68; see also Harris, 2022
WL 3452316, at *11 (“Yelling, rude comments, disparaging remarks, and statements that
embarrass a claimant in front of coworkers are, even though uncivil and objectionable, not
actionable bases for Title VII retaliation claims.”); Howard v. Kerry, 85 F. Supp. 3d 428, 435
(D.D.C. 2015) (dismissing Title VII retaliation claim in part because supervisor’s yelling “in an
intimidating fashion” did not rise to the level of adverse action); Koch v. Schapiro, 699 F. Supp.
2d 3, 14 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing Title VII retaliation claims premised on a supervisor’s episode
of yelling at the plaintiff).
Plaintiff makes no attempt to distinguish these precedents, see Pl.’s Mot. at 14, and instead
argues that Knott’s alleged statement to plaintiff, that she “need[s] to find another job,” “had a
materially adverse effect on the terms of plaintiff’s employment.” Id. (citing Gaujacq v. EDF,
Inc., 601 F.3d 565, 578 (D.C. Cir. 2010)). Plaintiff’s reliance on Gaujacq is unconvincing. In
Gaujacq v. EDF, Inc., the D.C. Circuit made clear that “a statement that literally appears to be
threatening is not necessarily a materially adverse action,” and “[a]n employer's words and other
actions must be considered in context to determine whether they would ‘dissuade a reasonable
worker’ from filing a claim and thus result in actionable retaliation.” 601 F.3d at 578. Applying
that principle to the facts, the Gaujacq Court held that the alleged retaliatory statement levied
against plaintiff, “[y]our career is dead . . . if you file the claim,” was not “a materially adverse
action” because “a reasonable worker in [the plaintiff's] position would not have taken [the] brief,
fleeting, and unadorned verbal statement as an act or threat of retaliation,” especially considering
that the company attempted to accommodate plaintiff's employment wishes before and after the
comment was made. Id.
21
Under Gaujacq, Knott’s statement to plaintiff, that she “need[s] to find another job,” was
merely a “brief, fleeting, and unadorned verbal statement” that cannot support an actionable
retaliation claim. See id. Knott’s statement was not followed by any other changes to plaintiff’s
employment, nor did Knott again tell plaintiff to find another job or leave employment with the
Agency. Standing alone, Knott’s statement was just as fleeting as in Gaujacq, so it cannot amount
to a materially adverse action.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
as to each of her claims, requiring dismissal. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is
granted. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously.
Date: April 24, 2023
__________________________
BERYL A. HOWELL
U.S. District Court Judge
22
Black v. Guzman
Combined Opinion