Barrett v. Pepco Holdings
275 F. Supp. 3d 115
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Deborah Barrett, a 60‑year‑old African‑American woman, sued Pepco Holdings alleging race, gender, and age discrimination, failure to promote, hostile work environment, and retaliation; originally pro se, later counsel substituted and she sought to amend her complaint.
- Allegations: her supervisor (younger white male) denied a requested promotion after assigning her mentoring duties, isolated her from colleagues, limited breaks, gave a low performance rating after she complained to HR, and another supervisor used a derogatory term and allegedly threatened her.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiff moved for default judgment based on a late responsive pleading; defendant filed a timely consent motion for extension and later opposed the motions. Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint; defendant argued futility and procedural defects (ADEA exhaustion, collective‑bargaining ineligibility).
- Court treated defendant as responsive and denied default judgment; addressed plaintiff’s motion to amend under Rule 15 and Foman v. Davis futility standard.
- Court granted leave to amend only as to Title VII failure‑to‑promote claims (race and gender); denied leave (with prejudice for ADEA claims) for ADEA counts for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; denied leave without prejudice for retaliation and hostile‑work‑environment claims under Title VII as inadequately pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was warranted for a late response | Barrett argued Pepco’s responsive pleading was late and default judgment appropriate | Pepco showed it accepted service, sought and obtained an extension, and actively participated | Denied — Pepco was not essentially unresponsive |
| Whether leave to amend to assert ADEA claims is permissible | Barrett sought to amend to clarify age‑based discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation | Pepco argued Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; exhaustion defense not waived | Denied with prejudice — ADEA claims barred for failure to exhaust |
| Whether leave to amend Title VII failure‑to‑promote claims is permissible | Barrett alleged dates, events, and that younger white males were considered for promotion | Pepco argued facts do not state a prima facie case and Plaintiff pleaded herself out of court by alleging ineligibility under the CBA | Granted — pleading meets notice standard; factual disputes (CBA eligibility) inappropriate at motion to dismiss |
| Whether leave to amend Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims is permissible | Barrett alleged low evaluation, segregation, reduced breaks, derogatory remark, and alleged threats after complaining to HR | Pepco argued these allegations do not allege an adverse action causing financial harm or a hostile environment causally linked to protected activity | Denied without prejudice — allegations insufficiently pleaded (no alleged financial harm from review; hostile‑environment allegations not plausible or causally connected) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (default judgment requires party be essentially unresponsive)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (Rule 15 leave to amend generally granted unless futility or other factors present)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (Title VII notice pleading does not require prima facie specifics)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (complaints must contain plausible factual allegations)
- Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (plaintiff should not be dismissed for pleading facts that only resolve merits after discovery)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (negative performance reviews are adverse actions only when tied to financial or tangible harms)
- Veitch v. England, 471 F.3d 124 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (routine non‑selection or criticisms do not create hostile work environment)
- Freedman v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 255 F.3d 840 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (isolated offensive remarks typically insufficient to establish hostile work environment)