MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Tonia
Ingram, a former employee of the District of Columbia Child
and Family Services Agency (“CFSA”), brought this
lawsuit challenging discriminatory and retaliatory practices
by CFSA that she alleges eventually led to her termination.
Ingram suffers from severe anxiety, and she alleges that CFSA
discriminated against her on the basis of that disability, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-213, and
D.C. Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code
§§ 2-1401.01 to -1404.04. Ingram further alleges
that CFSA retaliated against her after she complained about
the discrimination by terminating her employment, in
violation of the ADA and DCHRA. CFSA has now moved to dismiss
Ingram's complaint in its entirety, arguing that Ingram
has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to her
ADA retaliation claim, never engaged in a protected activity
that would form the basis for a DCHRA retaliation claim, and
does not qualify as disabled under the ADA and DCHRA. The
Court agrees only as to the first argument. First, Ingram
concedes that she has failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies as to the ADA retaliation claim, and the Court
therefore dismisses it. However, taking all inferences in her
favor-as it must at the motion to dismiss stage-the Court
finds that Ingram has sufficiently alleged that she engaged
in a protected activity, and it accordingly denies the motion
to dismiss Ingram's DCHRA retaliation claim. And because
Ingram has alleged facts sufficient to plausibly infer that
she was regarded as disabled by CFSA, the Court also denies
the motion to dismiss as to her ADA and DCHRA disability
discrimination claims.[1]
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND[2]
A.
Ingram's Background and Employment at CFSA
Ingram
is a licensed clinical social worker with over fifteen years
of experience. Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, ECF No. 1. She
suffers from severe anxiety, which she was formally diagnosed
with in the 2000s. Id. ¶ 11. Ingram has been
prescribed anxiety medication to help deal with the condition
and she “also seeks mental health counseling as
needed.” Id. While Ingram worked at CFSA, she
mentioned her condition to some of her coworkers, including
to her supervisors, but she never informed the agency's
human resources department (“HR”) of the
condition. See Id. ¶ 12.
In
September 2011, Ingram was hired by CFSA as an investigator
social worker. Id. ¶ 15. The position required
Ingram to “assess[] and investigate[] allegations of
neglect and physical and sexual assault of children living in
the District of Columbia.” Id. ¶ 16.
Ingram performed well on the job, obtaining a “Hero
Award” in 2014 for providing excellent service and
receiving an invitation to participate in a CFSA rapid
response team tackling backlogged cases in 2015. See
Id. ¶ 17. In 2016, Ingram was promoted to the
position of supervisory social worker, in which she would
“supervis[e] a team of four Child Protective Social
Workers.” Id. ¶ 19. After her promotion,
Ingram's new supervisor became Cherlitheia Irving, a
program manager at CFSA. See Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
Ingram
initially had a cordial relationship with Irving. See
Id. ¶ 20. While Irving was formally assigned as
Ingram's supervisor, Ingram “did not report to her
regularly” and Irving would advise Ingram “to
seek consultation with another Program Manager because Irving
supervised too many people to advise [Ingram].”
Id. However, Irving and Ingram began meeting more
regularly around November 2017, at which point “the
relationship began to sour.” Id. ¶ 21.
Although Irving gave Ingram a satisfactory performance
evaluation in December 2017, id. ¶ 22, she
shortly thereafter began harassing her, id. ¶
23.
On
December 11, 2017, Irving expressed doubts about Ingram's
judgment regarding a particular case where Ingram had
indicated that removal of children from their parents'
custody might be necessary (the “Gillis case”).
Id. ¶¶ 24-25. While discussing the Gillis
case, Irving accused Ingram of “failure to listen and
failure to accept constructive criticism” in a
“harsh and condescending manner.” Id.
¶ 27. According to Ingram, Irving then continued to
harass her specifically because of her anxiety,
“us[ing] Ingram's anxiety as a means of controlling
the narrative of [Ingram]'s work, conduct, and
performance.” Id. ¶ 32. Irving
“made it appear to others in the organization that
[Ingram] was no longer able to make sound clinical decisions
due to her anxiety, ” and “mocked [Ingram] by
making statements to upper management that she was
‘running around acting anxious.'”
Id. Irving also “falsely accused [Ingram] of
harassing and chastising workers because she suffers from
anxiety.” Id. ¶ 33.
On
December 13, 2017, Ingram reached out to Elizabeth
Muffoletto, a program administrator at CFSA. See Id.
¶¶ 31, 35. Ingram “recounted the details of
the harassment caused by Irving” but “noted that
there was no altercation, rather there was a difference in
opinion and a discussion with respect to the Gillis
Case.” Id. ¶¶ 36-37. She told
Muffoletto that “this was the first time she had a
removal case with Irving as supervisor, it was messy, and
Irving was unsupportive.” Id. ¶ 37. And
she asked Muffoletto if she could be moved from Irving's
supervision to another program manager, because “she
perform[ed] better under” the other program manager,
who was more supportive. Id. ¶ 39. Muffoletto
denied the transfer of supervision. See Id.
Muffoletto also told Ingram that she “was acting
paranoid and that her thoughts were all over the place,
” which Ingram explained was because her anxiety
“was getting bad and she was having difficulties
articulating her thoughts.” Id. ¶ 38.
On
January 12, 2018, Ingram had a supervision meeting with
Irving. See Id. ¶ 43. After the meeting became
contentious, Irving called Muffoletto into her office to
“observe [Ingram's] behavior.” Id.
¶ 45. Irving accused Ingram of rejecting her supervision
and feedback, see Id. ¶ 49, and of failing to
take appropriate notes in her cases, id. ¶ 50.
Irving also told Ingram that she was “running around
the agency acting anxious” the night of the removal in
the Gillis case. Id. ¶ 52. Irving continued to
criticize Ingram's work over the next few weeks, accusing
her of, inter alia, “lying about a case”
and “not managing her social workers” on January
18, 2018, id. ¶¶ 58-59. Ingram again
complained to Muffoletto, who “took no action” as
a result. Id. ¶ 63. At some later point in
February, Irving “accused [Ingram] of calling and
harassing her social workers after hours, ” which
“Irving alleged . . . was . . . because [Ingram's]
anxiety caused her an irrational desire to close out
cases.” Id. ¶ 69.
The
relationship between Irving and Ingram ultimately got so bad
that “Irving began to take notes of every conversation
with [Ingram] to create a ‘paper trail, '”
with Ingram herself “taking her own notes to paint a
more accurate picture of the situation.” Id.
¶ 74. On March 9, 2018, Ingram “participated in a
focus group with court-appointed monitors” and
“briefly informed them about her ongoing issue with
Irving.” Id. ¶ 74. On March 14, Ingram
was informed by CFSA HR that she would be terminated, with no
explanation for the termination other than the fact that she
was an at-will employee. Id. ¶ 78. Ingram was
placed on administrative leave starting March 15, and was
formally terminated on March 29, 2018. See Id.
¶¶ 78-80.
B.
Procedural History
Ingram
filed a formal charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on
March 23, 2018. See Id. ¶ 2. On April 5, 2018,
the EEOC issued Ingram a right to sue letter. See
Id. ¶ 5. Ingram filed suit on July 5, 2018,
bringing claims for disability discrimination and retaliation
under both the ADA and DCHRA. See Id. ¶¶
84-95. CFSA has now moved to dismiss the entire complaint for
failure to state a claim. See Def.'s Mem. Supp.
Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 10. Ingram has filed an opposition,
see ...