Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D.D.C.: RIF’d elementary school registrar of 71 stated age, disability discrimination claims, (Aug 4, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She suffered an injury in early 2021 that “temporarily” prevented her from caring for herself or performing manual tasks, according to the court.

A 71-year-old elementary school registrar for the District of Columbia Public Schools, terminated in a reduction in force after she suffered an injury and requested and took FMLA leave—shortly before which she was allegedly subjected to comments about her “gray hair” and “dressing as an ‘elderly woman’”—stated ADEA discrimination and ADA discrimination and retaliation claims against D.C., but not retaliation claims under Title VII or the FMLA. The former registrar alleged that the RIF did not originally include her position but that it did after she took disability leave, and although she failed to identify the ages of the individuals who allegedly made the comments or their roles in the RIF process, she did allege that she suffered “repeated derogatory remarks and discussions about her age” by a supervisor shortly before she was terminated (Tuck v. District of Columbia, No. 24-cv-2609 (TSC) (D.D.C. July 30, 2025)).

DCPS career. The plaintiff started as a DCPS substitute teacher in 2012 and after working as a full-time teacher from 2017 to 2019, she became the registrar at DCPS’s Hendley Elementary School.

Injury and leave request. In early 2021, she suffered an injury that “temporarily” prevented her from caring for herself or performing manual tasks, according to the court. She claimed that, although she remained “able to perform the essential functions of her job as Registrar with or without accommodation,” she requested leave pursuant to the FMLA and ADA due to her disability.

Leave approved. In March 2021, DCPS approved her FMLA leave. Her complaint did not, however, state how DCPS responded to her request for ADA accommodation.

Alleged comments about age. Shortly before she took the leave, however, “the Vice Principal and other administrative staff,” she alleged, made “repeated derogatory remarks and discussions about her age,” including comments about her “‘gray hair’, ‘dyeing’ of her hair, and [] not dressing as an ‘elderly woman.’”

Return to work and RIF notice. The registrar notified DCPS via email that she was medically cleared to return to work on July 26, 2021, but when she returned to Hendley Elementary on July 28, 2021, the principal gave her “a letter dated June 4, 2021, notifying her of the elimination of her position effective June 25, 2021, purportedly as part of a reduction in force.” She had received no prior notice and was unaware her position had been terminated.

RIF decisions made before her leave? She alleged that DCPS had already made budgetary adjustments and RIF decisions at Hendley Elementary shortly before her FMLA leave, and that individuals impacted by that RIF had received prompt notification and information about “job fairs and other opportunities to regain employment with [Defendant].” The former registrar alleged that, in contrast, DCPS eliminated her position without providing notice or an opportunity to regain employment with it.

EEOC charge and lawsuit. On January 26, 2022, she filed a charge against DCPS with the EEOC, alleging discrimination under the ADA and ADEA. She then filed suit in federal district court on September 10, 2024, asserting claims under the ADA, ADEA, and Title VII.

DCPS moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

ADA discrimination. The court first found that the former registrar’s disability discrimination claim cleared the ADA’s “low bar.” She alleged that the RIF in March 2021 did not originally include her position but that it did after she took disability leave. “An employer’s decision to terminate an individual only after learning of their disability lays the foundation for an inference of discrimination,” the court observed.

In addition to the temporal overlap between her disability leave and termination, she alleged that personnel affected by the March 2021 RIF “were contacted to pick up their reduction in force letters from the office and notified of job fairs and other opportunities to regain employment with Defendant.” In her case, however, DCPS failed to timely contact her or deliver the RIF letter; she received it nearly eight weeks later when she returned from leave. And she also alleged that she never received opportunities to be rehired. In sum, said the court, she alleged that DCPS “deviated” from the procedures and treatment afforded to other employees in an earlier RIF, which “is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”

ADEA discrimination. Her age discrimination claim also survived the motion. Although she failed to identify the ages of the individuals who allegedly made the comments about her age or their roles in the RIF process, she did allege that she suffered “repeated derogatory remarks and discussions about her age” by a supervisor—the Vice Principal—shortly before she was terminated, and she provided specific examples of the insulting language.

Retaliation. Finally, the former registrar’s ADA retaliation claim survived, while her Title VII and FMLA retaliation claims were dismissed. To the extent that she intended to assert an FMLA retaliation claim, the court found, it was untimely, even assuming that the statute’s three-year limitations period applied, because she received notice of her termination in July 2021 and filed suit in September 2024.

As to her Title VII retaliation claim, she contended that she engaged in statutorily protected activity by “requesting leave pursuant to the ADA and FLMA [sic],” not because she opposed any unlawful employment practice that discriminated on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or participated in any Title VII-related proceeding before she was fired. And though she did file an EEOC charge after she was fired, which would qualify as protected activity, she did not allege that DCPS took any subsequent adverse action against her.

Finally, her ADA retaliation claim survived the motion to dismiss. “A request for leave may constitute a reasonable accommodation request,” the court observed, and the former registrar also sufficiently alleged a causal connection between her protected activity and a materially adverse action—her termination. At the motion to dismiss stage, “an adverse employment action occurring within three to four months of the protected activity [i]s sufficient to allow an inference of causation,” and here, DCPS fired the registrar during her disability leave.

The case is No. 24-cv-2609 (TSC).

Judge: Chutkan, T.

Attorneys: George A. Rose (Tully Rinckey) for Gertrude Tuck. Christina Okereke, Office of the Attorney General, for District of Columbia.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave PublicEmployees Discharge DistrictofColumbiaNews