Plaintiff Shelli Renia Simmons sued defendant Frank Kendall, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Air Force, in his official capacity, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma raising claims of discrimination under the federal Rehabilitation Act. Defendant Frank Kendall moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Shelli Renia Simmons, the plaintiff, alleges that she was formerly employed by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and brings claims under the federal Rehabilitation Act in connection with that employment, seeking compensatory damages as well as an award of attorney’s fees and costs. In response to these allegations, defendant Frank Kendall, Secretary of the USAF, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant argues that the plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a Rehabilitation Act claim for hostile work environment, retaliation, or failure to accommodate. Concurrently, the plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend to file a second amended complaint, asserting additional claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 following a final agency decision, along with some additional factual support for her federal claims. The defendant opposed this amendment, broadly contending that the plaintiff’s proposed new pleading fails to plausibly allege either the Rehabilitation Act or Title VII claims and thus should be denied as futile.
Legal Analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and relevant authority, finding that leave to amend should be given under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that the defendant had not sufficiently established that the presentation of the pleading proposed by the plaintiff would be futile. Particularly, the defendant failed to address the elements of Title VII claims and therefore could not demonstrate that these new claims would be subject to dismissal. The court also noted that the defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff has timely brought the Title VII claims following her receipt of a final agency decision.
Ultimately, the court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, allowing her to file the second amended complaint. Consequently, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied as moot.
Schrag on Law 