Stewart v. Ross, No. 1:2018cv01369 - Document 95 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 4/17/2020. (See order for further details).(acha, ) Copy sent as directed in the order.

Download PDF

Stewart v. Ross Doc. 95 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 43 PageID# 3649 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division FENYANG STEWART, Plaintiff, l:18-cv-I369(LMB/TCB) l:16-cv-213(LMB/JFA) WILBUR L. ROSS,JR., Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce,et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION In these consolidated civil actions brought against defendants Wilbur Ross and Andre lancu (collectively,"defendants"), in their respective capacities as the Secretary ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce("USDOC")and the Director ofthe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), plaintiff pro se Fenyang Stewart ("plaintiff' or "Stewart") challenges multiple mixed case decisions ofthe Merit Systems Protection Board("MSPB")and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission("EEOC"),including the affirmance of his removal from employment with the USPTO.' Before the Court are defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Part and Motion for Summary Judgment in Part, as well as plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Part and Motion for '"A mixed case appeal is an appeal filed with the MSPB that alleges an appealable agency action was effected, in whole or in part, because of discrimination." Zachariasiewicz v. U.S. Dep't of Justice. 395 F. Supp. 3d 734, 738(E.D. Va. 2019)."Normally, an employee alleging unlawful employment actions by an agency must split his claims into separate actions before different administrative entities depending on the allegations." Id "A mixed case appeal is, in essence, a hybrid action allowing an employee to streamline his case by bundling his claims into one proceeding before the MSPB." Id Once the MSPB issues its decision, an employee can petition the EEOC to review the decision only with respect to the discrimination claims. Luther V. Gutierrez. 618 F. Supp. 2d 483,489—90(E.D. Va. 2009). Once the EEOC issues its decision, an employee can seek review of both decisions in the appropriate federal district court. Id Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 43 PageID# 3650 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 43 PageID# 3651 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 43 PageID# 3652 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 43 PageID# 3653 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 43 PageID# 3654 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 43 PageID# 3655 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 43 PageID# 3656 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 43 PageID# 3657 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 43 PageID# 3658 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 43 PageID# 3659 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 43 PageID# 3660 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 43 PageID# 3661 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 43 PageID# 3662 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 43 PageID# 3663 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 43 PageID# 3664 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 17 of 43 PageID# 3665 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 18 of 43 PageID# 3666 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 19 of 43 PageID# 3667 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 20 of 43 PageID# 3668 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 21 of 43 PageID# 3669 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 22 of 43 PageID# 3670 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 23 of 43 PageID# 3671 [his] requesting a plain-english reasonable accommodation (to not have to report to work before 10:00 a.m. on a consistent basis)" by "subject[ing] him to a 2-biweek proving ground ritual wherein he was told that [if] after the first bi-week he did not match arbitrary production goals set by [defendants], he would be discharged." Compl. 8. As a result of this action, plaintiff "was afraid of being punished if he made a request... that the [standing desk and footstool] be provided to him in a timely manner." Id This argument is meritless. As the undisputed timeline shows, plaintiff submitted his request for the standing desk and footstool on July 30,2014, which was seven days after this alleged instance of retaliation by Garber.[MSPB Record, Dkt. 16-7, at 151-53]. Accordingly, plaintiffs asserted fear is an example ofthe "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, and naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" that "are not entitled to the presumption of truth." Wikimedia Found, v. Naf1 Sec. Agencv,857 F.3d 193, 208(4th Cir. 2017). Plaintiffs also makes the inconsistent argument that he timely consulted an EEO counselor with regard to Counts 1 and 11 because "the failure of[defendants] to accommodate him constituted a continuing violation ofthe Rehabilitation Act." Compl.^ 7. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that "by initiating EEO contact prior to 45 days [after] the last date ofthe continuing violation, all [counts within] the continuing violation, from [October 3, 2014 through October 18, 2015], are to be considered timely by the Court." Id. H 8. This argument is also unpersuasive because "[t]he continuing-violation doctrine applies to claims based upon a defendant's ongoing policy or pattern of discrimination rather than discrete acts of discrimination," and "a defendant's failure to accommodate constitutes a discrete act rather than an ongoing omission." Hill v. Hampstead Lester Morton Court Partners LP.581 F. App'x 178, 181 (4th Cir. 2014). Therefore,"the continuing violation doctrine is inapplicable." Id.; see also 23 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 24 of 43 PageID# 3672 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 25 of 43 PageID# 3673 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 26 of 43 PageID# 3674 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 27 of 43 PageID# 3675 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 28 of 43 PageID# 3676 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 29 of 43 PageID# 3677 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 30 of 43 PageID# 3678 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 31 of 43 PageID# 3679 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 32 of 43 PageID# 3680 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 33 of 43 PageID# 3681 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 34 of 43 PageID# 3682 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 35 of 43 PageID# 3683 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 36 of 43 PageID# 3684 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 37 of 43 PageID# 3685 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 38 of 43 PageID# 3686 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 39 of 43 PageID# 3687 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 40 of 43 PageID# 3688 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 41 of 43 PageID# 3689 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 42 of 43 PageID# 3690 Case 1:18-cv-01369-LMB-TCB Document 95 Filed 04/17/20 Page 43 of 43 PageID# 3691

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.