REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.
This case, in which the plaintiff, Salim Bilal-Edwards, filed a six-count complaint against the defendants alleging, among other things, wrongful termination, negligence, extreme and outrageous conduct, and hostile work environment,
Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the facts currently before the Court are as follows.
One of the defendants, the United Planning Organization ("UPO"), is a "human service agency"
The plaintiff, Salim Bilal-Edwards, is a fifty-year old man who was hired in March 2009 as an Assistant Director of Youth Services at the UPO's facility located at 301 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Id. ¶¶ 3, 8-9. As an Assistant Director, the plaintiff was responsible for monitoring at least some of the UPO's financial activities, including ensuring that federal grant funds received by the UPO were expended properly. Id. ¶¶ 20, 22-23. The plaintiff also "developed partnerships" with other organizations within the community on behalf of the UPO. Id. ¶ 36.
The plaintiff was instructed, but refused, to breach a contract with one of the UPO's community partners and to "submit a potentially false report" to another. Id. ¶¶ 38-39, 45-46. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rorie were "angry" and "enraged" with the plaintiff because of his refusals and complaints. Id. ¶¶ 44-46.
In the course of carrying out his various duties, the plaintiff discovered that the UPO was misusing federal grant funds, id. ¶¶ 27-28, and subsequently "informed staff that [the d]efendants could not spend federal stimulus grant dollars" inappropriately, id. ¶¶ 46-48. In addition to complaining about funding discrepancies and contracts, the plaintiff complained to Ms. Thomas about her "use of negative and derogatory names." Id. ¶ 51. Ms. Thomas "often referred to [the p]laintiff and another male employee as `box lifters,'" and "referred to another male employee as her `pole dancer.'" Id. ¶¶ 49-50. The plaintiff further complained to the UPO's Assistant Director of Human Resources about a female employee's allegations that Ms. Thomas was sexually harassing her. Id. ¶¶ 57-59. Because of the plaintiffs complaints, Ms. Thomas increased the amount of work required of the plaintiff. Id. ¶ 61.
In December 2009, the plaintiff was transferred to UPO's 3839 Alabama Avenue, S.E. location. Id. ¶ 8. Both the UPO and Mr. Rorie were aware that the Alabama Avenue facility "had a history of sewage problems" and that "sewage was leaking" underneath the facility. Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 15. Additionally, a methane odor permeated the facility, resulting in the plaintiff and two female employees, both in their twenties, complaining to the UPO and to Mr. Rorie about the odor. Id. ¶¶ 13-14, 16. The "[p]laintiff inhaled [the] methane fumes for months," causing him to fall ill and suffer from migraine headaches. Id. ¶ 16.
Neither the UPO nor Mr. Rorie responded to the plaintiffs complaints about the odor or his resulting illness. Id. ¶ 18. Because of the plaintiffs "complaints about the odor of methane," id. ¶ 19, and "complaints about [Ms. Thomas's] conduct toward
After removing this action to this Court, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss on January 4, 2012. Because the plaintiff did not file a response within the appropriate time frame, the defendants filed a supplemental brief arguing that, in addition to the substantive arguments raised in their initial memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs claims should be dismissed as conceded. Defs.' Supp. Mem. at 2. The plaintiff did not immediately reply, but instead notified the Court and the defendants that his attorney "ha[d] been unresponsive to phone calls and emails," and further noted that he would be proceeding pro se because he "lack[ed] the means to hire new [c]ounsel." Pl.'s Jury Mot. at 1. The plaintiff eventually filed his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on May 14, 2012. On May 31, 2012, the plaintiff filed his motion for a continuance, which also contained additional arguments in response to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Pl.'s Cont. Mot. at 3-5. The defendants opposed the plaintiffs motion in a June 13, 2012 memorandum. Defs.' Cont. Opp'n at 1.
The defendants seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint has properly stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Woodruff v. DiMario, 197 F.R.D. 191, 193 (D.D.C.2000). For a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that it contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although Rule 8(a) does not require "detailed factual allegations," a plaintiff is required to provide "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)), in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (omission in original). In other words, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw [a] reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A complaint alleging facts which are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability ... stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion under this framework, "[t]he complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged," Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C.Cir.
The plaintiff objects to the defendants' argument that "Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 [should] be denied due to untimely filing by the Plaintiff," and thus requests that the Court grant him a continuance prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss in order to allow him to obtain new counsel. Pl.'s Cont. Mot. at 1. Because the Court finds, upon considering the merits of the plaintiffs complaint and the plaintiffs briefs, see, e.g., United States v. Palmer, 296 F.3d 1135, 1143-44 (D.C.Cir.2002) (considering merits of pro se motion despite untimeliness), that the plaintiffs claims are substantively deficient, the plaintiffs motion for a continuance is hereby denied as moot.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants terminated his employment in retaliation for his complaints about the misappropriation of government funds, refusal to breach a contract, and complaints about the UPO's Alabama Avenue facility, Compl. ¶¶ 78-79, 83, 85, and "for insubordination," Pl.'s Cont. Mot. at 3. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs allegations do not fit under any public policy exception to the District of Columbia's general principle that an at-will employee may be terminated at any time.
"It has long been settled in the District of Columbia that an employer
The plaintiff fails entirely to state the public policy upon which his wrongful termination claim is based. This omission requires the Court to dismiss the plaintiffs wrongful termination claim. See Davis, 525 F.Supp.2d at 102; Robinson, 819 F.Supp.2d at 21.
The plaintiff alleges that the UPO "was aware of sewage issues at their Alabama Avenue location but failed to ensure proper maintenance of the septic system." Compl. ¶ 92. According to the plaintiff, the defendants knew that the plaintiff was suffering from migraine headaches as a result of the odor at the UPO's Alabama
The defendants counter arguing (1) that the plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to support a claim for negligence because he fails to identify any duty owed to him by the defendants, and that, in any event, no duty exists, Defs.' Mem. at 16-17, and (2) "the conduct described [in the complaint] does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to survive a motion to dismiss," id. at 18. The defendants further argue that the plaintiffs common law tort claims are barred by the District of Columbia's Worker's Compensation Act (the "Worker's Compensation Act" or "WCA" or "Act"), D.C.Code §§ 32-1503 to -1504 (2001). Id. at 16-17.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has stated that the Worker's Compensation Act, which "was enacted to provide a reasonably quick and efficient manner to compensate employees" for injuries that occur in the workplace, constitutes "a system in which common law tort remedies [are] discarded for assured compensation regardless of negligence or fault." McCamey v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 947 A.2d 1191, 1196-97 (D.C.2008) (quoting Ferreira v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 531 A.2d 651, 654 (D.C.1987)). The Worker's Compensation Act is, by its own terms, the exclusive remedy available to employees for workplace related injuries. D.C.Code § 32-1504(a) ("The liability of an employer prescribed in [the WCA] shall be exclusive and in place of all liability of such employer to the employee ... on account of such injury or death."); see also Vanzant v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 557 F.Supp.2d 113, 117 (D.D.C.2008) ("The WCA is the exclusive remedy for workplace injury."); Everson v. Medlantic Healthcare Grp., 414 F.Supp.2d 77, 86 (D.D.C.2006) (same). "[I]njuries ... specifically intended by the employer to be inflicted on the particular employee who was injured" fall outside the scope of the Worker's Compensation Act. Everson, 414 F.Supp.2d at 86 (citing, among others, Grillo v. Nat'l Bank of Wash., 540 A.2d 743, 744 (D.C.1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress will fall within the scope of the Worker's Compensation Act where the resulting injury is of the type ordinarily compensable by the Act. See, e.g., Wright v. D.C. Dep't Emp't Servs., 924 A.2d 284, 286 (D.C.2007) (observing that both physical and emotional injuries are compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act where such injuries "occur[] in the course of the employment and as the result of a risk involved in or incidental to the employment or to the conditions under which it is required to be performed") (internal quotation marks omitted); Carson, 778 F.Supp.2d at 96-97 (dismissing claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiff alleged that the defendants created a hostile work environment that resulted in the plaintiff suffering from an "emotional breakdown" and damage to "his ability to interact with the public"); Charles P. Young Co. v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 681 A.2d 451, 458 (D.C. 1996) (finding injury resulting from harassment and verbal abuse compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act). But see Underwood v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 665 A.2d 621, 624, 634 (D.C.1995) (holding that intentional infliction
Because (1) the plaintiffs alleged injuries "ar[ose] out of and in the course of his employment," D.C.Code § 32-1504(b), (2) the plaintiff does not allege that the defendants "specifically intended" to inflict injury specifically on the plaintiff, Everson, 414 F.Supp.2d at 86, and (3) the plaintiffs alleged injuries were "incidental to" his employment at the UPO's Alabama Avenue facility, Wright, 924 A.2d at 286, the Court finds that the plaintiffs claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the Worker's Compensation Act and therefore fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, both of these claims are dismissed.
The plaintiff includes in his complaint a cause of action against Ms. Thomas for "hostile work environment." Compl. ¶¶ 101-102. The Court construes this claim as either arising under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C.Code §§ 2-1402.11(a)(1), 2-1402.61(a)-(b) (2001), or under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 to -3 (2006).
The plaintiff alleges that Ms. Thomas subjected him to a hostile work environment by "instructing him] to acquire partnerships with outside entities" and subsequently "knowingly and willfully attempting] to breach contractual obligations" arising out of those partnerships. Compl. ¶ 102. Elsewhere in his complaint, the plaintiff also states that Ms. Thomas referred to him and another male co-worker in "negative and derogatory terms." Id. ¶ 49. The defendants argue that the plaintiff "fails to allege incidents severe enough to state a claim of hostile work environment," Defs.' Mem. at 22, and fails to link his age or his gender to the harassment complained of or to any protected activity under Title VII, Defs.' Mem. at 22-23.
"The law is clear that to establish a claim of discrimination based on a hostile work environment under the DCHRA, a plaintiff must show: `(1) that he is a member of a protected class, (2) that he has been subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) that the harassment was based on membership in a protected class, and (4) that the harassment is severe and pervasive enough to affect a term, condition or privilege of employment.'" Campbell-Crane & Assocs. v. Stamenkovic, 44 A.3d 924, 933 (D.C.2012) (quoting Daka, Inc. v. Breiner, 711 A.2d 86, 92 (D.C.1998) (emphasis deleted)). Further, "in order to be actionable under the statute, a sexually objectionable environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so." Id. (citing Lively v. Flexible Packaging Ass'n, 830 A.2d 874, 889 (D.C.2003)). A plaintiff pleading under Title VII must show similar elements. See, e.g., Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1201 (D.C.Cir.2008) ("To prevail on" a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, "a plaintiff must show that his employer subjected him to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
The first two elements of a hostile work environment under the DCHRA outlined above are easily met. The plaintiff "is a male over 40 years of age," Compl. ¶ 75, making him a member of two protected classes. D.C.Code § 2-1402.11(a)(1) ("It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice" for an employer "[t]o ... discharge[] any individual[] or otherwise to discriminate against any individual" either "wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the actual or perceived... sex [or] age" of the individual). Additionally, the plaintiff contends that he was subjected to unwanted harassment by Ms. Thomas,
The fourth element, whether "the harassment is severe and pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment,'" Campbell-Crane & Assocs., 44 A.3d at 933, is not satisfied. "The harassment must consist of more than a few isolated incidents[,] ... and genuinely trivial occurrences will not establish a prima facie case." Nicola v. Wash. Times Corp., 947 A.2d 1164, 1173 (D.C.2008) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, "including `the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it interferes with an employee's work performance.'" Id. (quoting Lively, 830 A.2d at 890). "[I]t is critical that, in bringing a hostile work environment claim [under the DCHRA], the plaintiff establish discriminatory harassment." Id. While the plaintiff alleges that Ms. Thomas called him "negative and derogatory" names "[t]hroughout [his] employment," Compl. ¶ 49, the other factors do not weigh in the plaintiffs favor. For example, the plaintiff does not allege that he was physically threatened or that the harassment interfered with his work performance. Ms. Thomas's conduct, though bad-mannered, is more consistent with "mere offensive utterance[s]," Nicola, 947 A.2d at 1173. And the plaintiff has not shown that Ms. Thomas's conduct "affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment." Campbell-Crane & Assocs., 44 A.3d at 933.
Because the plaintiff does not connect the harassment to either his age or his gender, and because he has not alleged that the harassment altered a term, condition, or privilege of his employment, the plaintiff's hostile work environment claim must be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant the defendants' motion to dismiss counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and will deny the plaintiffs motion for a continuance as moot.
