United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
D. BATES United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint With Prejudice (ECF
No. 12). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
who is visually impaired, held the position of Deputy Clerk
in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(“Superior Court”) from March 25, 2002 until his
termination on September 2, 2016. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1,
3. According to plaintiff, defendants discriminated against
him because of his visual disability in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117, and because of his political
activity in violation of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§
has a visual impairment, see Am. Compl. ¶¶
1, and informed his employer of his disability in 2002,
id. ¶ 5. To accommodate his disability,
plaintiff requested a 36-inch computer monitor on unspecified
dates in 2014 and 2015. Id. Instead, plaintiff
received a 27-inch monitor, id. ¶ 6, which was
“reconfigure[d] . . . to accommodate [his] visual
impairment, ” id. ¶ 8, by enlarging the
font size, see Defs.' Mem. of P. & A. in
Support of their Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Am. Compl.
(“Defs.' Mem.”) at 2. When the Superior Court
“replaced all computers in 2015, ” plaintiff
asked “those who installed the new computers” to
arrange the same reconfiguration he had been provided before
as an accommodation for his disability. Am. Compl. ¶ 9.
In November 2015, when “IT personnel . . . inspected
[plaintiff's new] computer, ” they allegedly
“ignored [plaintiff's] request to reconfigure [it]
as an accommodation.” Id. ¶ 11. Because
the new computer had not been reconfigured, see id.
¶¶ 9-12, plaintiff “had trouble seeing with
[the 27-inch] monitor, ” id. ¶ 14. As a
result, “[b]ecause the smaller screen did not allow
[plaintiff] to see properly, [his] work was graded
filed an EEOC complaint on September 13, 2016. Id.
¶ 15; see Defs.' Mem., Ex. 1 (EEOC Charge
of Discrimination No. 570-2016-02201) at 1. He checked the
box indicating disability as the basis of his discrimination
claim and stated that the alleged acts of discrimination took
place between August 25, 2016 and September 13, 2016.
Defs.' Mem., Ex. 1 at 1. The narrative portion of the
I was hired by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
in February 2002 as a courtroom clerk but actually worked as
a deputy clerk. I requested an accommodation due to my
disability several months after I began which I was granted
until approximately Fall of 2015, in the form of larger font
on my monitor. Around Fall of 2015 however, everyone received
new monitors, and my computer monitor was no longer
configured to have the larger font I had prior. I attempted
to rectify this several times, however my monitor was never
reconfigured to accommodate me after this point despite
numerous requests. Due to no longer having my requested
accommodation, I struggled in my regular duties and was given
negative evaluations. In August 2016 I was notified that I
will soon be terminated.
I believe I was discriminated against based on my disability
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Id., Ex. 1 at 1.
held an elected position as an Advisory Neighborhood
Commissioner. See Am. Compl. ¶ 17. According to
plaintiff, his supervisor “harassed [him] and told
[him] that [he] needed to stop [his] political activity as an
[ANC C]ommissioner.” Id. Although plaintiff
does not describe the nature of his political activity, he
attributes the denial of a promotion in 2009 to this
activity. Id. ¶ 18. And when plaintiff did not
resign his ANC position, his supervisor in 2012 allegedly
“placed [him] in a job” knowing that plaintiff
“would not be able to perform [its] duties, ”
id. ¶ 19, and plaintiff “received less
than favorable job evaluations, ” id. ¶
demands reinstatement, the promotion he was denied in 2009,
benefits, back pay, and monetary damages of $10 million.