Abdelaal v. Wsp Global Inc
Civil Action No. 2023-1793
D.D.C.Aug 5, 2024Background
- Shaddy Abdelaal, a Black male in his 30s, was employed by Urban Engineers (second-tier contractor) and supervised by both Urban Engineers and WSP USA, Inc. (first-tier contractor) on Washington transit projects.
- Abdelaal made repeated complaints in June 2022 alleging racial discrimination and site safety violations, including the denial of water, shelter, and safety equipment to Black workers.
- After raising these complaints, Abdelaal was suspended and subsequently terminated; he was told the reason was ongoing investigation but alleges retaliation.
- Abdelaal filed an administrative whistleblower complaint with OSHA under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, then sued both companies alleging discrimination and retaliation under various federal and local statutes.
- WSP and Urban Engineers moved to dismiss claims based on the election-of-remedies provisions in the FRSA/NTSSA, and various pleading insufficiencies on other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRSA/NTSSA Election of Remedies | Filing OSHA complaint doesn't bar FRSA/NTSSA claims unless Secretary takes action | Filing any OSHA 11(c) complaint bars FRSA/NTSSA claims | Court agreed with defendants; claims barred by election-of-remedies |
| Title VII Retaliation Against WSP | WSP was a joint employer with Urban; sufficient control | WSP was not Abdelaal's employer under Title VII | Abdelaal's allegations sufficient to proceed as to joint employer status |
| Section 1981 Retaliation Against WSP | Had at-will employment (a contract) as joint employer | No contract between Abdelaal and WSP | Allegations of at-will employment suffice for contract at this stage |
| Race Discrimination Claims (Title VII/1981/DCHRA) | (Withdrew) | Should be dismissed for insufficient facts | Dismissed as unopposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (Section 1981 requires contractual relationship)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (subject-matter jurisdiction burden)
- Al-Saffy v. Vilsack, 827 F.3d 85 (D.C. Circuit test for joint employer under Title VII)
- Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826 (D.C. Circuit test: economic realities of employment)
- NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Pa., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117 (joint employer control standard)