Amiri v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
35 F. Supp. 3d 41
D.D.C.2014Background
- Amiri worked for Securitas as a security guard at Howard University from 2002 until a 2009 RIF; Securitas laid off ~100 guards and promised to rehire laid-off employees but did not rehire Amiri.
- Amiri filed an OHR charge in April 2011; parties reached a written mediation settlement (Sept. 2, 2011) promising a good‑faith interview if Amiri reapplied.
- Amiri interviewed on Sept. 16, 2011 with RVP Lanius, who decided not to hire him based on statements Amiri made during the interview raising concerns about integrity and communication; HR manager Britt allegedly influenced Lanius.
- Amiri filed a March 1, 2012 OHR/EEOC charge alleging retaliation for prior protected activity; OHR investigated and found no probable cause (Aug. 30, 2012), the dismissal was affirmed and the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights.
- Amiri sued pro se in Dec. 2012 under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and unspecified state law claims against Securitas and two individual managers; defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual supervisors are liable under Title VII | Amiri sued managers Britt and Lanius individually | Title VII does not permit individual liability | Dismissed: Title VII claims against individuals are barred |
| Whether Amiri exhausted administrative remedies for a Title VII discrimination claim | Amiri asserts failure to rehire amounted to discrimination | The operative March 1, 2012 charge alleged only retaliation, not discrimination | Summary judgment for Securitas on unexhausted discrimination claim |
| Whether Amiri established a Title VII retaliation claim | Amiri contends failure to rehire was retaliation for his prior charge/mediation | Defendants show nondiscriminatory reasons: interview-based concerns about behavior/integrity and poor communications; no nexus to protected activity | Summary judgment for Securitas: Amiri failed to make a prima facie case and cannot show but‑for causation |
| Whether § 1981 claim based on national origin is viable | Amiri alleged discrimination based on Afghanistan national origin | § 1981 protects racial (not national origin) discrimination; claim premised on national origin | Dismissed: § 1981 claim fails because it alleges national origin, not race |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Morgan v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 328 F.3d 647 (failure‑to‑hire prima facie elements)
- Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (Rule 12(b)(6) testing legal sufficiency)
- Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36 (construing pro se complaints)
- EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621 (documents courts may consider on 12(b)(6))