Parkins v. Godfrey et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Dismiss; directing the Postmaster to answer the second amended complaint no later than 3/25/2025; finding as moot 40 Motion to Stay Discovery, the Court will enter a Case Management and Scheduling Order separately. Signed by Senior Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 3/5/2025.(SRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
DAVID JAMES PARKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:23-cv-1422-TJC-PDB

LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General,
Defendant.
ORDER
This employment discrimination case is before the Court on Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 38), to which plaintiff
responded in opposition (Doc. 41). Plaintiff, who alleges he has depression and
anxiety, suffered on the job injuries to his back in July 2020 and March 2021.
Plaintiff alleges the Postmaster failed to provide reasonable accommodations
that would account for his lifting restrictions while his back recovered and also
account for his mental health restrictions, which prevented him from working
the midnight to six a.m. shift. Plaintiff also alleges the Postmaster retaliated
against him for availing himself of his leave benefits.
The Postmaster moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and (6).

First, he contends that any claims related to failure to

accommodate plaintiff’s physical restrictions should be dismissed for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. But the EEOC documents of record belie
that. See Doc. 28-2 at 1 (EEOC Final Agency Decision, describing Statement
of Claims: plaintiff “alleged discrimination based on disability (back), [and]
mental disability (depression),” and alleged he “was not accommodated when
management offered [plaintiff] modified duty assignments that violated
[plaintiff’s] medical restrictions”); Doc. 1-2 at 1 (EEOC right to sue letter,
describing plaintiff’s limitations caused by July 2020 and March 2021 back
injuries). Thus, the Court rejects the Postmaster’s argument that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to plaintiff’s claims related to the
accommodation for plaintiff’s physical disabilities.
The Postmaster also contends that plaintiff fails to state a claim as to his
request for accommodations for his physical disabilities. But it is evident from
the allegations of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint that his physical
restrictions following his two back injuries were the genesis of his subsequent
requests for accommodations in the first place. Stated otherwise, without the
physical disability, there would have been no need for any accommodations.
Drawing reasonable inferences, plaintiff alleges that the Postmaster failed to
provide accommodations that accounted for both his physical disabilities and
his preexisting mental disabilities. This satisfies Rule 8.
The Postmaster further argues that plaintiff fails to allege that his
depression and anxiety substantially limit a major life activity. But here too,
2

the Court can reasonably infer from the allegations that plaintiff’s mental
conditions limit his ability to work—a major life activity—in that he alleges he
was unable to perform work during the only hours of the day that the
Postmaster offered. 1

At least for purposes of a motion to dismiss, this is

sufficient.
Finally, the Postmaster contends plaintiff’s retaliation claims fail because
he has not alleged he engaged in statutorily-protected conduct, nor any causal
connection between that conduct and the allegedly adverse employment action.
The Court finds plaintiff’s allegations, though somewhat vague, are sufficient
to withstand a motion to dismiss. The discovery process will flesh this out.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) is DENIED.

No later

than March 25, 2025, the Postmaster shall answer the second amended
complaint.
2.

Defendant’s Second Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 40) is MOOT.

The Court will issue a Case Management and Scheduling Order by separate
In the Eleventh Circuit, “work” is considered a major life activity.
Carruthers v. BSA Advert., Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 2004). The
Postmaster cites cases for the proposition that the inability to work a certain
shift is not, by itself, a disability. See Doc. 38 at 10-11. But those cases were
in a different procedural posture on a fully developed record. It is premature
to make those calls here.
1

3

order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 5th day of March,
2025.

s.
Copies:
Counsel of record

4