A federal judge has agreed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that a Black employee failed to show how a series of workplace grievances amounted to illegal retaliation or a hostile work environment based on his race or disability.

However, the lawsuit from Kenith DeLesline will continue on his last remaining claim: that the USDA failed to promote him on two occasions owing to his race or disability. The USDA did not attempt to dismiss that portion of DeLesline’s case.

On Dec. 13, U.S. District Court Judge Regina M. Rodriguez agreed DeLesline had fallen short in alleging his employer treated him differently from non-disabled, non-Black workers who were similar to him, nor had DeLesline depicted a workplace where discrimination against him was pervasive.

DeLesline, who lives in Arkansas, works for the U.S. Forest Service Job Corps, whose headquarters are in Denver. He alleged in his lawsuit that he suffers from medical ailments that would qualify him as disabled under federal law. In 2012 and 2013, he made requests for disability-related accommodations to the USDA, the parent organization of the Forest Service.

According to DeLesline, he experienced harassment following his subsequent complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) about the agency’s alleged failure to accommodate him.

“For example, on April 9, 2013, Plaintiff verbally complained to his immediate supervisor that the supervisor was excluding him from meetings with subordinate employees regarding matters for which he was responsible; repeatedly undermined his authority with subordinates by telling them they did not report to Plaintiff; and often countermanded instructions he had previously ordered Plaintiff to convey to subordinate staff members,” wrote Marisa Williams, the attorney for DeLesline.

After DeLesline complained to his supervisor, the supervisor allegedly ordered him to move to a different office less than 24 hours later. Several months afterward, in July 2013, DeLesline needed to take “intermittent sick leave over a 60-day period” related to his disabilities, which reportedly prompted his supervisor to demand “unnecessarily and unduly burdensome medical information.” His supervisor also told DeLesline’s subordinates not to contact him while on leave.

Finally, DeLesline applied to two director positions, which would have amounted to promotions. He was passed over for both jobs in July and August 2013, amid his ongoing conflicts with his supervisors. Non-disabled, white candidates allegedly filled the jobs.

After pursuing his discrimination charge for years through the EEOC, DeLesline filed a lawsuit in Colorado’s federal court in 2020. He alleged he was subject to a hostile work environment, that his supervisors retaliated against him for complaining about discrimination, and he did not receive the two promotions based on his race or disability.

Last March, Rodriguez dismissed DeLesline’s first two claims, finding he had not shown how his supervisors treated him worse than other, similar employees. She did, however, believe DeLesline had presented a plausible case that he was passed over for promotion for discriminatory reasons. Rodriguez allowed that claim to proceed while permitting DeLesline to refile his complaint with more detail about the other allegations.

The USDA, with the exception of the promotion-related claim, again attempted to dismiss DeLesline’s lawsuit.

“Allegations of the type Plaintiff makes here – that ‘he experienced mistreatment … from his supervisors’ – may show that Plaintiff ‘faced adversity in the workplace,'” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Lauren M. Dickey. But a supervisor excluding DeLesline from meetings or asking for documentation for his sick leave did not amount to a hostile work environment, she added.

In November, U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter analyzed the latest allegations from DeLesline and concluded they suffered from the same lack of specificity as the first set.

“Plaintiff points to no comments made by his immediate supervisor or any other management officials that were directed, explicitly or implicitly, at his race or disability status,” Neureiter wrote in his recommendation to Rodriguez. “Plaintiff’s supervisor’s actions may have been spiteful and inappropriate, but, as alleged, they do not amount to severe discriminatory harassment.”

Rodriguez agreed with the magistrate judge and adopted his recommendation entirely on Dec. 13. Earlier this month, the government filed a response to DeLesline’s complaint, admitting he was qualified for the two director positions he unsuccessfully applied for, but arguing there were “legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons” for its treatment of him.

DeLesline is seeking a court order appointing him to the director position, plus back pay and monetary damages if he prevails.

The case is DeLesline v. Vilsack.