Plaintiff Sara Dobbins sued defendant Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri raising claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, wrongful discharge, failure to accommodate, and FMLA violations. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Dobbins worked for USDA as a Program Assistant for approximately 17 years prior to her termination. She maintained good performance evaluations under supervisor Charles William Burden between 2016-2019. After experiencing domestic violence and mental health issues including anxiety, depression, and PTSD, Dobbins was granted reasonable accommodations in July 2019 that included flexible work options. In September 2021, Charles Parr became her supervisor and placed her on leave restriction. She received multiple AWOL notices and was eventually suspended for seven days in December 2021. In July 2022, she received a Notice of Proposed Removal which was rescinded and replaced with a second notice in August 2022. She was terminated in January 2023.
The court addressed evidentiary issues regarding the sealing of certain exhibits, ultimately allowing only medical records and certain PDF documents with embedded material to remain sealed.
Legal Analysis
Administrative Exhaustion: The court found Dobbins failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her retaliation claim, wrongful discharge claim, and failure to accommodate claim. For the retaliation claim, while Dobbins checked a box for reprisal on her formal complaint, she failed to clarify whether her retaliation claims were based on sex, disability, or race discrimination. Regarding wrongful discharge, the court noted her termination occurred months after her administrative complaint, requiring a new or amended complaint which she failed to file. On the failure to accommodate claim, the court rejected Dobbins’s argument that there was a continuing violation, finding that denial of accommodation is a discrete act requiring separate exhaustion.
FMLA Claims: The court determined Dobbins abandoned her FMLA claims after failing to respond to defendant’s argument that no private right of action exists for federal employees. In a footnote, Dobbins conceded these claims could be dismissed, and she made no further argument regarding whether federal employees have a private right of action under FMLA.
Disparate Treatment: The court found no direct evidence of discrimination and determined Dobbins failed to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court noted that Parr’s comments about “leaving home issues out of the workplace” and “little girl” comments required too many inferential steps to constitute direct evidence of discrimination. His requests for additional documentation and advance notice were consistent with agency policy rather than evidence of discriminatory animus.
Hostile Work Environment: The court concluded the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment and lacked evidence of discriminatory animus. Specifically, Dobbins’s claims about increased scrutiny of leave requests, close monitoring of timeliness, and general workplace scrutiny were found to be common workplace conduct rather than harassment. While there were instances of minimizing her disabilities or symptoms, these were isolated incidents that did not rise to the level of creating a hostile environment. The court noted that much of the evidence consisted of generalized allegations without specific details about who made statements or when they occurred.
The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims.
Schrag on Law 