1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

(Miami Division)

THADDEUS A. MENSAH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY,

Defendant.

 /

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff, THADDEUS A. MENSAH, sues Defendant, STEVEN MNUCHIN, 

SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, and shows:

Introduction

1. This is an action by THADDEUS A. MENSAH against his former employer, the 

Internal Revenue Service, for discrimination based on his disabilities, race and national origin and 

reprisal for seeking reasonable accommodations for his disabilities. By the filing of this action, 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees.

Jurisdiction

2. This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-16, et seq. (“Title VII”) which applies to employees of the federal government and 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (Rehabilitation Act). The Court has federal 

question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Title VII claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 and 

jurisdiction over both the Title VII claims and the Rehabilitation Act claims under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 1 of 22
2

Venue

3. This action properly lies in the Miami Dade Division of the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida, because the unlawful employment practices were 

committed in Miami-Dade County and all employment records relevant to such unlawful 

employment practices are maintained and administered within this judicial district.

Parties

4. Plaintiff, THADDEUS A. MENSAH (hereafter “Plaintiff” or “MENSAH”), at all 

times material, was a Tax Compliance Officer employed by the Internal Revenue Service, which 

is part of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. 

5. Plaintiff currently resides in New Jersey and is a black American citizen whose 

country of origin is Ghana, Africa. He is therefore protected from discrimination under Title VII 

based on his race and national origin. MENSAH is also protected by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) 

which prohibits discrimination against employees who oppose unlawful employment practices 

under Title VII, or who file administrative charges of discrimination under Title VII.

6. At all times material, Plaintiff was “handicapped” under the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., in that he suffers from physical impairments, i.e., glaucoma, 

diabetes, anxiety disorder, major depression and attention deficit disorder (ADD), that, either alone 

or in combination, substantially limit one or more major life activities, he had a record of such 

impairments and/or was regarded as having such impairments. Plaintiff was also a “qualified 

individual” under the Rehabilitation Act, in that he could perform the essential functions of his job

as a Tax Compliance Officer with or without reasonable accommodations, and in fact performed 

those functions at a fully successful level or better.

7. Defendant, STEVEN C. MNUCHIN, is the current SECRETARY OF THE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (hereafter “Defendant,” “Agency” or

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 2 of 22
3

“TREASURY”), which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) where Plaintiff worked and 

is named as Plaintiff’s employer in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). TREASURY is also 

an Executive Agency of the United States under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

8. On or about January 31, 2018, MENSAH timely filed a Formal EEO Complaint of 

Discrimination with Defendant’s EEO Office, raising claims for race discrimination, national 

original discrimination, disability discrimination and reprisal, which was assigned TD Case No. 

IRS-18-0109-F (hereafter “EEO Complaint”). 

9. After the IRS completed the processing of the EEO Complaint and issued a Report 

of Investigation, MENSAH timely filed a request for a hearing on August 13, 2018 and the EEO 

Complaint was assigned EEOC Case No. 510-2018-00438X and designated for hearing before an 

administrative judge in the EEOC Miami District Office.

10. On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff withdrew his EEO Complaint and hearing request from 

the EEOC pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(a)-(b) because more than 180 days had elapsed since 

the hearing request with no final action by the EEOC. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, an Order of 

Dismissal was entered by the EEOC on June 19, 2020. 

11. This civil action is being filed within thirty days of withdrawing the EEO Complaint 

from the EEOC and the entry of the EEOC Order of Dismissal on June 19, 2020. MENSAH has 

therefore complied with all administrative prerequisites to pursue his claims in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

12. MENSAH has retained the undersigned attorney to represent him in this case and 

is obligated to pay reasonable costs and fees for his attorney’s services in the event he is the 

prevailing party in this matter.

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 3 of 22
4

General Factual Allegations

13. Plaintiff was hired by the Agency in 2008 in California as a disabled individual 

under the Agency’s Workforce Recruitment Program for Students with Disabilities. He was 

employed by the IRS for nearly ten years in California (2008 to 2013) and Florida (2013 to 2017), 

with his last day of work on December 22, 2017. 

14. MENSAH is an American citizen whose country of origin is Ghana, Africa. 

15. Plaintiff initially worked for Defendant in California until 2013, when MENSAH 

transferred to a position in the Fort Myers, Florida office as a Tax Compliance Officer (GS-0526-

09), working under the supervision of Group Leader Connelia Finn. Even with his disabilities, 

MENSAH was able to meet the caseload and performance standards for his position without any 

need for reasonable accommodations while assigned to the Fort Myers Office under the 

supervision of Connelia Finn. 

16. In or about November 2014, MENSAH applied for and was granted a hardship 

transfer to the Miami Tax Compliance Office in Miami, Florida, where he was assigned to Group 

5 under the supervision of Patricia Benedetti. At the time of the transfer, MENSAH had completed 

his probationary period and training in Fort Myers and was rated as “fully successful” on his annual 

performance appraisal. 

17. Once he transferred to Miami, the consistently higher caseload and lack of 

managerial support in Miami began to exacerbate Plaintiff’s disabilities and made it increasingly 

difficult to meet the performance expectations of Patricia Benedetti. Plaintiff’s average weekly 

caseload in Miami regularly exceeded 100 cases, which was significantly more than in Fort Myers 

and approximately 30% higher than the Agency guidelines which dictated an average caseload of 

65-70 for GS-9 and GS-11 Tax Compliance Officers. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 4 of 22
5

18. During the period from November 2015 through June 2016, Ms. Benedetti was 

detailed to other duties by the Agency and although she physically remained in Miami during her 

temporary assignment, Connelia Finn was appointed as the Acting Manager of the Miami TCO. 

Ms. Finn was still domiciled in Fort Myers but she made frequent trips to Miami to meet in person 

with MENSAH and the employees in Group 5. 

19. When MENSAH’s disabilities began to affect his performance in Miami beginning 

in early 2016, he initially tried to speak with Ms. Benedetti about his issues, but instead of showing 

any empathy or referring him to the Agency’s Reasonable Accommodations Coordinator or EEO 

Office, Ms. Benedetti instead mocked Plaintiff for seeking assistance and accused him of trying to 

use his disabilities as an excuse for not doing his job. 

20. Because he had a good working relationship with Connelia Finn, Plaintiff also 

discussed with her the difficulties he was having with his caseload under Ms. Benedetti and asked 

for suggestions and guidance about how to stay organized while meeting the increased caseload. 

In April 2016, Ms. Finn advised Plaintiff to consider seeking assistance through the Agency EAP 

program and she continued to work with him to improve his performance until her assignment as 

Acting Group Manager ended in September 2016. 

21. Despite the significantly higher workload in Miami, MENSA received a fully 

successful rating of 3.0 from Connelia Finn on his annual evaluation in June 2016, which was 

reviewed and approved by Patricia Benedetti and her supervisor, Territory Manager Debbie 

McMillan. 

22. Prior to returning to Fort Myers, Ms. Finn also completed a “departure evaluation” 

of Plaintiff for the period of June 1, 2016 to September 17, 2016, in which she again rated him 

“fully successful” with an average CJE score of 3.0. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 5 of 22
6

23. After Ms. Benedetti resumed her day-to-day duties as Group Manager in September 

2016, she once again increased Plaintiff’s caseload and renewed her harsh and unwarranted 

criticism of his job performance whenever he tried to seek guidance or assistance. 

24. In late September 2016, MENSAH spoke with his union representative, Pucho 

Perez, who agreed that the workload that Ms. Benedetti assigned to Plaintiff and the other 

employees under her supervision exceeded the Agency’s guidelines and was unreasonable. 

25. On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff sent the following email to Patricia Benedetti and 

her supervisor, Territory Manager Debbie McMillan:

I would like to discuss a very personal and Important matter with you. I have a serious 

health issue and would like to schedule a conference call meeting and discuss it with you. 

I believe it is important to let you know what is going on with me so that you may able to 

help me with my work from now on. Please let me know what day is available this week 

for to discuss this Issue.

Thank you so much for your patience with me being here.

Sincerely Yours,

Thaddeus Mensah

TCO, Miami POD

26. After Plaintiff sent his email, a brief conference call was scheduled, during which 

MENSAH advised Patricia Benedetti and Debbie McMillan of his disabilities and asked them to 

consider some type of adjustment or reduction of his extremely high workload and/or new case 

assignments so that his caseload would not exceed the Agency’s own guidelines for his position. 

27. On October 3, 2017, Patricia Benedetti emailed MENSAH and advised him that 

since he had requested reasonable accommodations for his disabilities, he needed to complete and 

submit a formal written request.in accordance with Agency policies and procedures.

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 6 of 22
7

28. In accordance with Patricia Benedetti’s instructions, Plaintiff submitted a Treasury 

Form 13661 Reasonable Accommodations Request on October 27, 2016, for multiple 

impairments, including glaucoma, ADD and diabetes. As a reasonable accommodation, 

MENSAH requested a 20% to 30% reduction of this then-average caseload of more than 100 cases, 

so that his workload would be consistent with his job description and Agency guidelines that 

dictated an average caseload of 65 to 70 cases. 

29. At the time he submitted the Form 13661, MENSAH was unaware that Patricia 

Benedetti and Debbie McMillan had already made a final decision in early October 2016 to deny 

his request for any type of caseload adjustment or reductions as an accommodation for his ADD, 

depression and anxiety disorder. 

30. The decision to deny the request for accommodations was made unilaterally by Ms. 

Benedetti and Ms. McMillan and in clear violation of Defendant’s own EEO policies and 

procedures. Ms. Benedetti conducted her own “legal research” and there was no meaningful

interactive process with Plaintiff to discuss the request and the accommodations were summarily 

rejected by local management long prior to any involvement by Brenda Kampe, the subject matter 

expert assigned to the case by the Agency Reasonable Coordinator in mid-December 2016. 

31. In addition to the lack of any interactive process as required by the Rehabilitation 

Act, although Ms. Benedetti later claimed that Plaintiff’s excessive caseload was an essential 

function of his position that could not be modified, the Agency never conducted any formal review 

of the essential functions to determine the appropriate caseload for the position (or whether 

Plaintiff’s caseload was appropriate) and there was no discussion or analysis as to whether the 

requested accommodations would have created any undue hardship. Instead, Ms. Benedetti – who 

had no subject matter expertise or formal training regarding the Agency’s EEO policies -- was 

permitted to arbitrarily determine at the outset of the process that MENSAH’s average caseload of 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 7 of 22
8

over 100 cases was due to his own alleged shortcomings and her false narrative was taken at face 

value by Debbie McMillan, who was based in Jacksonville, Florida and rarely spent any time in 

the Miami Office. 

32. In addition to improperly denying the reasonable accommodation request at the 

local level, with no subject matter expertise and without any formal notice to Plaintiff, Patricia 

Benedetti reacted in an openly negative and hostile manner to Plaintiff’s formal requests for 

accommodations and his subsequent attempts to discuss the issues as part of the interactive 

process. By her actions and words, it appeared that Ms. Benedetti was annoyed by MENSAH’s 

accommodation requests and viewed them as an excuse to avoid doing his job and an attempt to 

undermine her managerial right and authority to assign his workload, and she therefore began to 

retaliate against MENSAH for continuing to seek accommodations for his ADD, depression and 

anxiety disorder. The retaliation continued for nearly a year until Ms. Benedetti left the Miami 

Office for another position in or about July 2017, and included heightened and unwarranted 

criticism of Plaintiff’s work-product and job performance and inappropriate mocking and verbal 

abuse of MENSAH during group meetings and when he attempted to initiate private discussions 

with her about his disabilities, how they affected his ability to perform his job duties and the status 

of his accommodations requests. 

33. Upon information and belief, Ms. Benedetti also violated Agency policies when 

she shared confidential information about Plaintiff’s disabilities and his accommodation requests 

with the Miami Group Clerk, Domingo Antonio Jimenez. Plaintiff had enjoyed a good working 

relationship with Mr. Jimenez during his first year in Miami but after MENSAH made his initial 

request for workload accommodations in late September 2016, Mr. Jimenez’ attitude and treatment 

of Plaintiff changed, and he began to openly mock Plaintiff in group meetings and single him for 

unfair criticism that was not directed to other employees. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 8 of 22
9

34. Despite the fact that he did not hold any managerial or supervisory position, 

Domingo Antonio Jimenez berated MENSAH in front of his co-workers and Patricia Benedetti, 

complaining that Plaintiff did not know how to do his job and that Plaintiff’s mistakes were making 

his own job harder. He also refused to provide with the same level of administrative support that 

he readily gave to Plaintiff’s co-workers and mocked Plaintiff’s national origin by making 

offensive jokes and negative references about the fact that Plaintiff was born in Ghana, Africa 

before he became a United States Citizen. 

35. At least one of Plaintiff’s co-workers (Heidi Rodriguez) spoke to Mr. Jimenez to 

advise him that it was inappropriate to mock MENSAH and discuss his job performance in 

meetings, but to Plaintiff’s knowledge, no remedial action was ever take by Ms. Benedetti or 

Debbie McMillan to stop the verbal abuse from Mr. Jimenez or his constant mocking and criticism 

of MENSAH. 

36. At the same time Patricia Benedetti was increasing her scrutiny and criticism of 

MENSAH’s job performance during the last three months of 2016, she was also undermining and 

frustrating his ability to complete his existing workload in a timely manner. For example, she 

changed Plaintiff’s work schedule from five eight hour days per week (which he had started 

working at the suggestion of Connelia Finn) and required him to work a “compressed schedule” 

of four ten hour days, despite the fact that the longer days were more fatiguing and therefore 

increased the difficulties he had with focus, concentration and workload management. 

37. Although Patricia Benedetti was known to have a very blunt direct and sometimes 

rude management style, MENSAH’s co-workers agreed that she singled Plaintiff out for harsh 

criticism more often than anyone else in the group, despite the fact that he treated her and others 

with the utmost respect and always spoke in a calm, polite and professional manner. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 9 of 22
10

38. MENSAH’s ability to communicate with Patricia Benedetti about his workload 

issues and accommodation requests was further eroded by Ms. Benedetti’s frequent recurring 

details to other management duties between October 2016 and July 2017. During this time frame, 

Ms. Benedetti was replaced by a rotation of Acting Group Managers who were drawn from 

Plaintiff’s co-workers in Group 5, and who had no authority or responsibility under the Agency’s 

policies to make decisions on accommodation requests or communicate such decisions while in an 

acting status. 

39. On the rare occasions when she was not detailed to other duties, Ms. Benedetti also 

denied (or simply ignored) Plaintiff’s requests for periodic “workload reviews” or any additional 

training that would assist him in managing his caseload and spoke down to him in an extremely 

harsh and unprofessional manner when he tried to seek her assistance or guidance. Instead of 

assisting Plaintiff in the same responsive manner as she did with his co-workers who requested 

guidance, Patricia Benedetti began to intensify her documentation of his errors and mistakes and 

on several occasions she even privately accused MENSAH of using his disabilities as an excuse 

for the fact that he was stupid and lazy. 

40. When nearly two months passed without any interactive process or response to his 

formal request for accommodations, Plaintiff submitted a second Form 13661 Reasonable 

Accommodations Request on December 23, 2016, for anxiety disorder and attention deficit 

disorder. This form was completed by a licensed clinical social worker who had treated Plaintiff 

and requested “workload adjustment to achieve manageable stress levels.” 

41. On January 20, 2017, after several more weeks passed with no response to his 

accommodation requests, MENSAH submitted his second Form 13661 Reasonable 

Accommodations Request for glaucoma and on January 22, 2017, a third Form 13661 was 

submitted for Plaintiff’s ADD and anxiety disorder. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 10 of 22
11

42. In late January or early February 2017, MENSAH was formally notified that his 

accommodation requests for glaucoma and diabetes had been granted, and that he would be 

receiving an ergonomic chair and keyboard along, noise-cancelling headphones and an assistive 

device to increase the size of the font on his computer screen. However, despite his frequent 

inquiries, there was still no formal response to his three separate requests for accommodations for 

his ADD, depression and anxiety disorder, and no interactive process had occurred.

43. Instead of responding to Plaintiff’s numerous inquiries about his request for 

accommodations for ADD, depression and anxiety disorder or initiating the interactive process 

required by the Agency’s policies, on the increasingly rare occasions that she was in the office, 

Ms. Benedetti continued to criticize and document his job performance. During this period, 

MENSAH once again had few opportunities to even communicate with Ms. Benedetti about his 

accommodation requests or his workload issues, and the acting managers during her details 

(Plaintiff’s co-workers Heidi Rodriguez and Ana Perdomo) were not involved in the decision 

making process on the accommodations issues and had no authority to speak about it. 

44. Plaintiff was supposed to receive his annual performance appraisal from Patricia 

Benedetti in June 2017. In light of Ms. Benedetti’s harsh criticism over the prior months, her 

frequent details to other duties and the Agency’s failure to engage in the interactive process or 

respond to his requests for accommodations for over six months, Plaintiff was highly concerned 

that the review process would not be conducted fairly by Ms. Benedetti and instead would be used 

against him. 

45. While MENSAH was trying to schedule his annual evaluation meeting in June 

2017, he was unaware of two significant events that occurred on his requests for accommodations 

that had now been pending for over six months. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 11 of 22
12

46. On June 22, 2017, the assigned Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator Brenda 

Kampe received a report from Papiya Ray, M.D., Occupational Medicine Consultant, who was 

engaged by the Agency to conduct an independent review of Plaintiff’s request for an adjustment 

of his workload. Although Dr. Ray was not asked to render a decision on whether a “30% caseload 

reduction” should be granted by the Agency under its EEO policies, based on her review of 

Plaintiff’s job description and the information from Plaintiff’s mental health care providers, she 

concluded that “a reduction in caseload would reduce one of those stressors, thereby improving 

his symptoms and relieving some of his limitations.” 

47. On June 26, 2017, Brenda Kampe forwarded Dr. Ray’s letter to Plaintiff, Patricia 

Benedetti and Debbie McMillan with a request for management to consider the 30% caseload 

reduction. There is no indication that Ms. Benedetti or Ms. McMillan ever followed Brenda 

Kampe’s recommendation to consider the caseload reduction in light of Dr. Ray’s opinion, and 

there was no interactive process or discussion with MENSAH regarding Dr. Ray’s findings. 

48. One day later, on June 27, 2017 – over eight months following Plaintiff’s 

submission of the first Treasury Form 13661 in October 2016 -- Debbie McMillan finally 

completed Part IV of Form 13661 and denied MENSAH’s request for what was described as a 

“reduction of workload.” In Section 2 of Part IV (Reasons for Denial), Ms. McMillan chose the 

following options: “Accommodation Ineffective/Inappropriate,” “Accommodation Would 

Require Removal of Essential Function” and “Accommodation Would Require Lowering of 

Performance or Production Standard.” She did not check the box for “Accommodation Would 

Cause Undue Hardship.” 

49. In Section 4 of Part IV, Debbie McMillan wrote the following narrative of the 

reasons for the decision: 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 12 of 22
13

An employee with a disability must meet the same production standards, whether 

quantitative or qualitative, as a non-disabled employee in the same job. Lowering or 

changing a production standard because an employee cannot meet it due to a disability is 

not considered a reasonable accommodation. 

However, a reasonable accommodation may be required to assist an employee in meeting 

a specific production standard. In this case, the employee has been provided with 

ergonomic chair and IRAP Equipment, including large monitor, large keyboard, noise 

canceling headphones and Zoom technology in order to assist him in meeting the 

performance and production standards of the position. He also has been provided with a 

mentor/coach for technical and procedural support.

50. In addition to providing the employee with a statement of the reasons for the 

decision on an accommodations request, Sections 4 and 5 of Part IV give critical notice of the 

employee’s rights to seek reconsideration of the denial (within 15 days of receipt) and the right to 

challenge the decision through the Agency’s EEO process (within 45 days of receipt).

51. Defendant’s policies require an employee to be provided with the formal denial of 

an accommodations request, but MENSAH never received a copy of Part IV of the Form 13661 

that was purportedly completed by Debbie McMillan on June 27, 2017. As a result, the Agency 

deprived MENSAH of any notice of his right to seek reconsideration or avail himself of the EEO 

process, which he certainly would have exercised in light of his concerns about the unreasonable 

delays in responding to his requests and the unfair treatment he had received from Patricia 

Benedetti after he submitted his requests. 

52. Although Plaintiff made his initial request to schedule his annual evaluation 

meeting in early June 2017, Patricia Benedetti was too busy to meet with him until almost two 

months later, on July 23, 2017. When they finally met to review and discuss his evaluation, Ms. 

Benedetti was in the process of transferring to a new position in the Agency’s office in Plantation, 

Broward County, Florida, after which she would no longer be MENSAH’s supervisor. She 

seemed distracted and irritated during the brief meeting, and spoke to Plaintiff in an extremely

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 13 of 22
14

rude and unprofessional manner concerning his job performance during the preceding year, even 

though she had spent most of the year detailed to other duties while MENSAH reported to a series 

of Acting Managers. 

53. Because he received a score only 1.8 on his evaluation, Agency policies dictated 

that Plaintiff was to be placed on a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and that if is 

performance did not improve or if he failed to find another position within the Agency he could 

be involuntarily separated from his employment. 

54. MENSAH filed a written appeal of his evaluation with Defendant’s Human 

Resources Department on July 30, 2017. The seven-page document listed and discussed in detail 

several concerns, including “lack of fairness in the evaluation process” and “Discrimination 

because of my disability” and noted that Plaintiff he had made several requests for 

accommodations prior to receiving the evaluation. 

55. Patricia Benedetti was never provided with a copy of the appeal by Human 

Resources and MENSAH never received any response from Human Resources to either the appeal 

or his complaint of disability discrimination during the evaluation cycle, nor was he provided with 

any notice regarding his EEO rights. 

56. Patricia Benedetti formally left the Miami Office by the end of July 2017 and was 

once again replaced by a rotation of Acting Group Managers who had no authority to consider or 

make decisions on accommodation requests and no desire to assist MENSAH with his caseload 

issues.

57. After Patricia Benedetti gave MENSAH a score of 1.8 on his evaluation, Brenda 

Kampe was directed by her supervisor to assist Plaintiff in his own efforts to self-locate an 

alternative position within the Agency that he could perform. If he was not successful in finding 

another position on his own, he was to be placed on a PIP. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 14 of 22
15

58. Despite Ms. Kampe’s efforts, no suitable positions were found between August and 

the end of December 2017, and Plaintiff was never offered another job within the Agency. 

59. During the several months that Ms. Kampe worked with Plaintiff to help him selflocate another position, she still never advised him that local management had formally denied his 

requests for accommodations and never provided him with a copy of Part IV of the Form 13661 

that was purportedly completed by Debbie McMillan on June 27, 2017. 

60. Due to Hurricane Irma, the Miami Tax Office was closed for several weeks in 

September and early October 2017. During this period employees worked from home and an 

online WhatsApp chat group was set up so that the employees could continue to communicate 

about work-related issues if necessary. The employees in Plaintiff’s group were aware that he 

was visiting family in Ghana from September 18, 2017 to October 23, 2017 due to a death in his 

family.

61. Prior to MENSAH’s return from Ghana, on or about October 20, 2017, Group 

Clerk, Domingo Antonio Jimenez posted an extremely offensive picture on the employee chat 

group, which depicted an individual dressed in what appeared to a ceremonial African tribal 

costume with feathers, spear and shield, under which Mr. Jimenez had typed the words “TCO 

Returns Home.” 

62. Plaintiff became aware of the offensive WhatsApp posting by Mr. Jimenez upon 

returning to the office from his trip to Ghana and was extremely distressed by the incident and the 

ongoing harassment from Mr. Jimenez. He reported the incident to the Acting Group Manager, 

Xavier Berros Rosero, who advised him of his option to seek EEO counseling regarding the 

harassment from Mr. Jimenez. 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 15 of 22
16

63. Because he was already working with her on a potential reassignment, MENSAH 

initially contacted Brenda Kampe about his discrimination complaint against Domingo Antonio 

Jimenez, who in turn advised him to contact Defendant’s EEO Office. 

64. When he contacted the Agency EEO Office on November 14, 2017 to seek 

counseling, Plaintiff had still not been advised by the Agency of the formal denial of his 

accommodation request and, in violation of Agency policies, had still never been provided with 

Part D of the Form 13661 Request for Accommodations that was purportedly completed by Debbie 

McMillan on June 27, 2017. He therefore raised issues regarding the denial of reasonable 

accommodations, disparate treatment and hostile work environment based on his disabilities, race 

and national origin discrimination. 

65. By mid-November, MENSAH was suffering from acute anxiety and depression as 

a result of his workplace issues, which led his treating mental health-care provider, Dr. Stanley 

Seidman, to prepare a 24-page page report on November 10, 2017 detailing his diagnosis and 

treatment of Plaintiff and the basis for his support of Plaintiff’s request for an adjustment of his 

caseload as a reasonable accommodation. 

66. MENSAH submitted a copy of Dr. Seidman’s report to Agency management and 

during the EEO counselling process, he made a final request for a reduction of his still-excessive 

caseload as a reasonable accommodation for his disabilities, which was again denied by Debbie 

McMillan in early December 2017. 

67. Despite several requests during the EEO counselling process, Plaintiff was also 

never advised whether any disciplinary or other remedial action was taken against Antonio 

Domingo Jimenez for the offensive WhatsApp posting. 

68. In early December 2017, MENSAH reported another incident to management and 

the EEO counselor after Mr. Jimenez refused to provide Plaintiff with ink cartridges for his printer 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 16 of 22
17

even while he was handing out ink cartridges to his co-workers, and then aggressively yelled at 

MENSAH to go get them himself from the supply room if he needed them. 

69. On December 22, 2017, Dr. Seidman wrote a note to the “Concerned IRS” which 

stated as follows: “Thaddeus is under my care for a severe stress disorder. As of December 22, 

2017, due to the severity of his mental status, I am recommending that he cease performing case 

work with the IRS and that he apply for disability immediately.”

70. Following his removal from work by Dr. Seidman, Plaintiff applied for disability 

retirement with the Office of Personnel Management on February 2, 2018. 

71. By decision dated August 18, 2018, OPM determined that Plaintiff eligible for 

disability retirement because he was “disabled for your position as a Tax Compliance Officer due 

to generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.” 

72. There are no legitimate reasons for Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s requests for 

reasonable accommodations, the reprisal he endured from Patricia Benedetti following hisrequests 

for accommodations or the discrimination to which he was subjected based on race and national 

origin.

73. As a result of Defendant’s denial of reasonable accommodations from October 

2016 to December 2017 and the discrimination and hostile work environment created by Patricia 

Benedetti and Antonio Domingo Jimenez, MENSAH’s working conditions were so intolerable

that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would be compelled to resign. 

COUNT I

Disability Discrimination

74. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 73 as if fully set forth herein.

75. The conduct of Defendant more particularly alleged above constitutes a violation 

of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), which prohibits the denial of any benefit of 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 17 of 22
18

employment, or discrimination by any Executive Agency of the United States, because of a federal 

employee’s disability. 

76. After Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations for his disabilities, 

Defendant violated the Rehabilitation Act by: (a) failing to engage in the interactive process with 

Plaintiff; (b) failing to timely respond to the accommodation requests for over eight months; (c) 

improperly denying the requests for accommodations and (d) failing to advise Plaintiff of his EEO 

rights to seek reconsideration of the denial or to challenge the denial under the Rehabilitation Act. 

based 

77. Defendant’s unlawful conduct in violation of the Rehabilitation Act caused Plaintiff 

to suffer compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, emotional pain and suffering, 

mental anguish and other intangible injuries, and ultimately resulted in Plaintiff’s constructive 

discharge from employment at the end of December 2017. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THADDEUS MENSAH, prays that this Court will:

(a) Declare Defendant’s conduct to be in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; 

(b) Enjoin Defendant from further engaging in such conduct;

(c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages;

 (d) Award Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988, and;

(e) Grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper. 

COUNT II

Retaliation for Seeking Reasonable Accommodations

78. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 73 as if fully set forth herein.

79. The conduct of Defendant more particularly alleged above constitutes a violation 

of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), which 

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 18 of 22
19

incorporates § 12203(a) of the Americans With Disabilities Act and provides “no person shall 

discriminate against an individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made 

unlawful by this Act.” 

80. Defendant violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the Rehabilitation Act when, 

following Plaintiff’s initial request for reasonable accommodations in September 2016, his 

supervisor Patricia Benedetti subjected MENSAH to adverse treatment that included, but was not 

limited to: unwarranted scrutiny and criticism of his job performance; inequitable distribution of 

workload; downgrading his annual performance rating to a rating of 1.8 so that he would be 

terminated for poor performance if he did not find an alternative position and verbal harassment.

81. The adverse treatment and verbal harassment of MENSAH following his requests

for reasonable accommodations created a hostile work environment that was sufficiently severe or 

pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.

82. Defendant’s unlawful conduct in violation of the Rehabilitation Act caused 

Plaintiff to suffer compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, emotional pain and 

suffering, mental anguish and other intangible injuries, and ultimately resulted in Plaintiff’s 

constructive discharge from employment at the end of December 2017. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THADDEUS MENSAH, prays that this Court will:

(a) Declare Defendant conduct to be in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; 

(b) Enjoin Defendant from further engaging in such retaliatory conduct;

 (c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages;

 (d) Award Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988, and;

(f) Grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper.

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 19 of 22
20

COUNT III

Race Discrimination

83. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 73 as if fully set forth herein.

84. The conduct of Defendant more particularly alleged above constitutes a violation 

of Title VII, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate 

against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 

employment, because of such individual’s race.

85. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to 

disparate treatment based on his race (black). The adverse treatment to which MENSAH was 

subjected included, but was not limited to: unwarranted scrutiny and criticism of his job 

performance; inequitable distribution of workload; downgrading his annual performance rating so 

that he would be terminated for poor performance if he did not find an alternative position and 

verbal harassment by his supervisor (Patricia Benedetti) and a co-worker (Domingo Antonio 

Jimenez).

86. The adverse treatment and verbal harassment of MENSAH based on his race 

resulted in a hostile work environment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms 

and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. 

87. Defendant’s unlawful conduct in violation of Title VII caused Plaintiff to suffer

compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish 

and other intangible injuries and ultimately resulted in Plaintiff’s constructive discharge from 

employment at the end of December 2017.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THADDEUS MENSAH, prays that this Court will:

(a) Declare Defendant’s conduct to be in violation of Title VII; 

(b) Enjoin Defendant from further engaging in such conduct;

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 20 of 22
21

 (c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages;

 (d) Award Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988, and;

(e) Grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper. 

COUNT IV

National Origin Discrimination

88. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 73 as if fully set forth herein.

89. The conduct of Defendant more particularly alleged above constitutes a violation 

of Title VII, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate 

against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 

employment, because of such individual’s national origin.

90. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to 

disparate treatment based on his national origin (Ghana Africa). The adverse treatment to which 

MENSAH was subjected included, but was not limited to: unwarranted scrutiny and criticism of 

his job performance; inequitable distribution of workload; downgrading his annual performance 

rating so that he would be terminated for poor performance if he did not find an alternative position 

and verbal harassment by his supervisor (Patricia Benedetti) and a co-worker (Domingo Antonio 

Jimenez).

91. The adverse treatment and verbal harassment of MENSAH based on his national 

origin resulted in a hostile work environment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the 

terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. 

92. Defendant’s unlawful conduct in violation of Title VII caused Plaintiff to suffer

compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 21 of 22
22

and other intangible injuries, and ultimately resulted in Plaintiff’s constructive discharge from 

employment at the end of December 2017.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THADDEUS MENSAH, prays that this Court will:

(a) Declare Defendant’s conduct to be in violation of Title VII; 

(b) Enjoin Defendant from further engaging in such conduct;

 (c) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages;

 (d) Award Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988, and;

(e) Grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher C. Sharp

Christopher C. Sharp, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 996858

Email: charplaw@aol.com 

Secondary email: chris@csharplawfirm.com

SHARP LAW FIRM, P.A.

1600 West State Road 84, Suite C

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315

Telephone: (954) 909-4246

Facsimile: (954) 909-4265

Dated: July 13, 2020 Counsel for Plaintiff THADDEUS MENSAH

Case 1:20-cv-22876-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 22 of 22