Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Massey v. Gray

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

March 27, 2015

SHIRLEY A. MASSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
VINCENT GRAY, et al., Defendants

Page 105

Shirley A. Massey, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC USA.

For District of Columbia, Defendant: David A. Jackson, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC USA.

Page 106

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 9. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who was born in 1950, identifies herself as " an African American [f]emale" who is " [d]isabled." Am. Compl. ¶ 1. It appears that plaintiff, a former employee of the University of the District of Columbia, sustained a workplace injury on June 7, 1989, was awarded workers' compensation benefits, and was deemed able to return to full duty status doing clerical work on or about May 5, 2011. See Mem. of P. & A. in Support [of] Def. District of Columbia's Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. or in the Alternative for Summ. J. (" Def.'s Mem." ), Ex. 4 (Notice of Intent to Terminate Public Sector Workers' Compensation Payments dated December 22, 2011) at 1. Plaintiff alleges that the District terminated workers' compensation benefits on or about February 17, 2012. Am. Compl. ¶ 3.

According to plaintiff, Phillip A. Lattimore, III, the District's Chief Risk Officer, not only " failed to get [her] a job or placement in the Return-to-Work Program," id. ¶ 2, but also testified before the Council of the District of Columbia on February 12, 2013, see generally Def.'s Mem., Ex. 5 (Testimony of Phillip A. Lattimore III, Chief Risk Officer, before the Council of the District of Columbia, Committee on

Page 107

Government Operations, ORM's FY 2013 Performance Oversight Hearing), that " some injured workers do not return to work because . . . some are too old to learn . . . ," Am. Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff testified before the Council on March 1, 2012, and as a result she claimed to have been " retaliated against by not being able to get a job or placed in the 'Return-To-Work Program[.]'" Id. ¶ 5. Further, she stated that her " D.C. Government Workers['] Compensation Benefits were unlawfully terminated." Id.

On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Def.'s Mem., Ex. 1 (Charge of Discrimination, No. 870-2013-01041). She alleged discrimination occurring on February 12, 2013 based on her age. See id., Ex. 1. In the narrative section of the form, plaintiff stated:

Late in the 1970's, I was hired by the University of the District of Columbia as an Administrative Assistant. After I went on extended workers['] compensation in 1989, my personnel records were transferred to the DC Government Office of Risk Management.
On or around December 22, 2011, I received a notice of intent to terminate my benefits effective January 22, 201[2]. On February 12, 2013, Chief Risk Officer Phillip Lattimore said I was too old and that I could not learn. I have been denied the opportunity to participate in the return to work program.
I believe I have been discriminated against based on my age (62), in violation of the Age Discrimination in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.