Plaintiff Brooke Austin sued defendant Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of hostile work environment and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Brooke Austin, a former employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, is a transgender, lesbian person and a disabled veteran. Austin alleges harassment based on disability and sexual identity by their direct supervisor, Kevin Vondra. The harassment began in the fall of 2022 when Vondra called Austin his “new bitch” on two occasions. After Austin’s formal complaint resulted in Vondra’s suspension, he started using Austin’s birth name, critiquing their work, and giving poor performance reviews.
Austin informed Vondra that the deadlines he set caused stress and anxiety, exacerbating Austin’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Despite this, Vondra refused to grant deadline extensions or assign Austin to a different supervisor. Vondra also prevented Austin from reporting an environmental hazard on a loan applicant’s land and said that Austin made others uncomfortable by speaking about being transgender and disabled. Eventually, the alleged harassment forced Austin to quit, which they claim amounted to constructive discharge.
Legal Analysis
Rehabilitation Act: Hostile Work Environment: The court concluded that Austin failed to plead a plausible hostile work environment claim under the Rehabilitation Act. Although Austin’s PTSD may constitute a disability, there was only one factual assertion that could constitute harassment based on the disability: Vondra’s refusal to provide additional time to complete tasks, which exacerbated Austin’s PTSD. The court found this hardly constituted harassment rising to the requisite level of pervasiveness or severity.
Other Claims: After thoroughly reviewing Austin’s other claims and the parties’ briefing, the court concluded that Austin’s pleadings were sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.
The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act hostile work environment claim but denied the motion with regard to the Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim and the Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims.
Schrag on Law 