United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II OF THE
COMPLAINT, ECF NO. 5
MICHAEL SEABRIGHT CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 24, 2018, Plaintiff Remington Scott
(“Scott”) filed a Complaint alleging claims
against Defendants ManTech International Corp.
(“ManTech”), John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe
Corporations 1-10, Doe Limited Liability Companies 1-10, Doe
Partnerships 1-10, Doe Non-Profit Corporations 1-10, and Doe
Governmental Entities 1-10, alleging racial discrimination,
disability discrimination, and retaliation. Compl., ECF No.
before the court is ManTech's Motion to Dismiss the
disability discrimination claim (Count II) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. ECF No. 5. Based on the following,
the Court GRANTS ManTech's Motion to Dismiss with
Allegations in the Complaint
Complaint alleges the following: Scott, who is of
“Filipino and African-American ancestry, ” served
in Iraq and Afghanistan in the U.S. Army before his honorable
discharge in 2011. Compl. ¶¶ 9-14. Scott believes
he developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a
result of his army service, although he was not diagnosed
with PTSD until 2015. Id. ¶ 15. ManTech
employed Scott starting in August 2012, and in June 2016,
Scott accepted a transfer to Kuwait, which included a 10%
increase in pay and a daily food stipend. Id.
¶¶ 16-17. Prior to this transfer, Scott had
received generally positive performance reviews, had not been
disciplined by ManTech for his work performance or behavior,
and had not experienced any misconduct while at ManTech.
Id. ¶ 18.
after the transfer, Scott's supervisor, Derrick
Traughber, told Scott that “half-black and
half-Filipinos aren't allowed in the office” in
front of another person, Fletcher Smith. Id.
¶¶ 19-21. Not long after, Traughber told Scott that
he would enjoy living with a coworker because “you both
are Filipino and eat the same food.” Id.
¶ 22. A few months later in November 2016, Traughber
told another person, Tonia Cannon, that Scott was a
“whore.” Id. ¶ 23. Scott made a
formal complaint to ManTech in January 2017 concerning
Traughber's behavior and ManTech stated that its review
corroborated Scott's claim about Traughber's
comments. Id. ¶¶ 24-25.
after making the complaint, Scott alleges that he was
retaliated against in the following ways: (1) Scott was
required to wear safety goggles when others were not; (2)
Scott's requests for repairs to the vehicle he was
assigned to drive were denied and as a result the vehicle was
unsafe to drive; (3) on February 15, 2017, when Scott refused
to drive the unsafe vehicle, he was reprimanded by two
supervisors, including Jeffrey Bentley
(“Bentley”); (4) the next day, Bentley did not
allow Scott to take a lunch break; and (5) the day after
that, Bentley hostilely ordered Scott to get out of his
vehicle in front of other employees and did not allow him to
return to work that day. Id. ¶ 26.
result of this alleged hostile work environment, Scott asked
ManTech to transfer him back to Hawaii, which was approved.
Id. Six hours after the transfer was approved, Scott
contacted ManTech and requested that the transfer be
cancelled, but ManTech refused his request. Id.
Scott then resigned from his position on April 1, 2017.
Id. The Complaint alleges that Scott resigned
“due to the discriminatory and retaliatory treatment
received from ManTech and out of frustration and
disappointment[.]” Id. The Complaint also
alleges that Scott resigned because of his PTSD, which was
exacerbated due to the discrimination and retaliation at
ManTech. Id. ¶ 27.
Scott's Interactions with the EEOC
filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on
August 28, 2017. See ECF Nos. 7-1 at 1-2, 24-2 at
1-2. Prior to filing that charge, Scott filed a pre-complaint
(intake) questionnaire on August 7, 2017. See ECF
No. 24-2 at 3.
pre-complaint questionnaire states, in relevant part:
1. Personal Information
Do You Have a Disability? [X] Yes  No
4. What is the reason (basis) for your claim of
[X] Race  Sex  Age  Disability
[X] National Origin  Religion [X] Retaliation
 Pregnancy [X] Color (typically a difference in skin
shade within the same race)  Genetic Information . . .
6. Why do you believe these actions were
discriminatory? . . .
I believe these actions were discriminatory because the
comments deeply offended me and affected my mental state. . .
Answer questions 9-12 only if you are claiming
discrimination based on disability. . . .
9. Please check all that apply:
[X] Yes, I have a disability
 I do not have a disability now but I did ...