Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-01093
07-11-2022
Jessica Monique Dawson, Plaintiff, v. Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL
Lynn N. Hughes, United States District Judge
I. Background.
Jessica Monique Dawson has sued:
(a) Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center;
(b) Laura Marsh;
(c) Helen Henson;
(d) Jill McGavin;
(e) Kaki York;
(f) Frank Bourgeois;
(g) Charles Burgar;
(h) Glenda Pruner;
(i) William Bogucki;
(j) Rita Klovanish;
(k) Gabrielle Profit;
(1) Cassandra Spencer Apodaca;
(m) Kimberly Landers;
(n) Neiletta Higgs;
(o) Robin Miller;
(p) Demetrius N Roberts;
(q) Sheila Butler;
(r) Deboarah Kingwood;
(s) Velicia Tubbs James;
(t) Cary Brown;
(u) Erago Henry;
(v) Barbara Bell;
(w) Maureen Dumas;
(x) Valerie Williams;
(y) Clara Achilefu;
(z) Wilburt Gayden;
(aa) Sgt. Quentin Milroe;
(bb) Ruth. Zabransky;
(cc) Michael King;
(dd) Joseph Reed;
(ee) Mamawah Bourque;
(ff) Jemarques Handy;
(gg) Tammie Walker; and
(hh) Harvey Bryant;
for age, race, and disability discrimination. In her complaint, she says that the Administration failed to hire her, fired her, failed to promote her, failed to accommodate her disability, subjected her to unequal terms and conditions of her employment, retaliated against her, constructively dismissed her, “performances appraisal ratings, harrassment/[hostile work environment], time & attendance modified resulting in debt/overpayment, jobs applied/backfiling, worklife benefits resulting in debt, entire personal profile/retirement, defamation of character, telework,” and “denied pursuit of practicum — stated removal of name from cert, approved by DEU.” She claims that the discrimination began on October 11, 2012, and continues through the present. Dawson insists that she is disabled because of a perforated bowel, chronic knee pain, anxiety, insomnia, and environmental stress.
The defendants have moved to dismiss all of Dawson's claims. They will prevail.
2. Failure to Respond.
The defendants moved to dismiss on June 10, 2022. Dawson had 21 days to file a response - or until July 21, 2022. She has not responded to the motion, so she has abandoned her claims against the defendants. Because of this, her case will be dismissed.
S.D.T.X. Local Rule 7.3.
McKenzie v. Principi, 83 Fed.Appx. 642 (5th Cir. 2003).
3. Exhausting Administrative Remedies.
A. Race and Disability Discrimination.
Before filing a lawsuit for race and disability discrimination, Dawson must have exhausted her administrative remedies. This includes a 90-day requirement for filing the district court lawsuit after receiving the final agency decision.
Fort Bend Cy., Texas v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 1843, 1846 (2019); Raspanti v. Caldera, 34 Fed.Appx. 151 (5th Cir. 2002).
Her final of four agency decisions was issued on December 17, 2021. Her deadline to have filed this lawsuit was March 17, 2022. She initiated this lawsuit when she filed her pauper application on March 29, 2022. Dawson gives no inclination that it took nearly two weeks for her to receive her final decision.
Any new issues that Dawson may attempt to raise in this lawsuit that was not included in her EEO complaints would also be barred for failing to properly engage in the administrative process.
Because her race and disability discrimination claims are time-barred, they will be dismissed.
B. Age Discrimination.
When deciding to sue under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Dawson had two options: (1) the administrative route by contacting an agency counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory act; or (2) filing in district court after giving the agency at least 30-days notice. Federal employees following the second path must file their lawsuit within 180 days of the discriminatory conduct.
The same go-day requirement applies under the ADEA to have exhausted administrative remedies. As explained above, Dawson did not timely file suit, so relief under the administrative path is time-barred.
Wright v. Arlington Indep. Seb. Dist., 834 Fed.Appx. 897, 901 (5th Cir. 2020).
Dawson is also precluded from now seeking relief under the second path. Once she began the administrative route by filing her EEO complaint, she elected her path and now cannot use the court to overcome her past administrative deficiencies.
Smith v. Potter, 400 Fed.Appx. 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2010); see also 29 U.S.C. § 633a(d).
Because her age discrimination claim is also time-barred, it will be dismissed.
4. Proper Party.
Under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, the proper party when suing a government agency is the head of the agency. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the secretary is Denis McDonough. He, however, is not a named defendant in this lawsuit, so all of the current defendants will be dismissed as improper parties.
Quevedo v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 234 F.3d 29 (5th Cir. 2000); Honeycutt v. Long, 861 F.2d 1346, 1349 (5th Cir. 1988).
5. Failure to State a Claim.
Dawson's complaint is scarce and what is included is exclusively legal conclusions. She offers no facts of what conduct was committed, when it happened, or who subjected her to it. She even sues many people who did not work at the hospital her administrative claim mentions - with no suggestion as to how these people are connected to them. Because she has not adequately pleaded her claims, her claims will be dismissed.
6. Conclusion.
Jessica Monique Dawson's claims against the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center; Laura Marsh; Helen Henson; Jill McGavin; Kaki York; Frank Bourgeois; Charles Burgar; Glenda Pruner; William Bogucki; Rita Klovanish; Gabrielle Profit; Cassandra Spencer Apodaca; Kimberly Landers; Neiletta Higgs; Robin Miller; Demetrius N Roberts; Sheila Butler; Deboarah Kingwood; Velicia Tubbs James; Cary Brown; Erago Henry; Barbara Bell; Maureen Dumas; Valerie Williams; Clara Achilefu; Wilburt Gayden; Sgt. Quentin Milroe; Ruth Zabransky; Michael King; Joseph Reed; Mamawah Bourque; Jemarques Handy; Tammie Walker; and Harvey Bryant; are dismissed. (23)