Bejarano v. Bravo! Facility Services, Inc.
251 F. Supp. 3d 27
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Bejarano was employed by Bravo! Facility Services and was diagnosed with breast cancer in Aug. 2013; she took medical leave and was terminated in May 2014.
- She filed a discrimination charge with Virginia, which was transferred to the EEOC and cross-filed with the D.C. Office of Human Rights; EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on Mar. 30, 2016.
- Bejarano filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on Sept. 2, 2014, and initially did not list her employment-discrimination claim on her schedules; the case was discharged and closed in Dec. 2014.
- She moved to re-open the bankruptcy on Apr. 22, 2015, amended Schedule B on June 2, 2015 to list a “Pending Employment Discrimination Claim,” and the trustee later reported no assets for distribution and the estate was administered.
- Bejarano sued Bravo in D.D.C. on May 20, 2016 asserting ADA, DCHRA, and FMLA claims; Bravo moved to dismiss under the doctrine of judicial estoppel arguing non-disclosure in bankruptcy.
- The district court denied Bravo’s motion to dismiss, holding Bejarano disclosed her claims by amendment, had standing, and was not judicially estopped.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bejarano’s amended bankruptcy schedules disclosed FMLA claims (standing) | The amended entry “Pending Employment Discrimination Claim” encompassed ADA, DCHRA, and FMLA claims | The phrase did not specifically encompass FMLA; thus FMLA was not disclosed | Held: Disclosure was sufficient; FMLA is a form of employment discrimination and the amended schedule put the trustee on notice, so Bejarano has standing |
| Whether Bejarano took a clearly inconsistent position warranting judicial estoppel | Bejarano reopened the bankruptcy and amended schedules before filing suit, and timely disclosed the claims to trustee and creditors | Bravo argues initial omission and prior nondisclosure require estoppel and dismissal | Held: No inconsistent positions — amendment occurred before suit and before any challenge; judicial estoppel not applied |
| Whether the bankruptcy court (or creditors) was misled by Bejarano’s filings | Bejarano amended and served creditors; trustee had opportunity to evaluate and abandoned the claims | Bravo contends the initial omission misled courts and advantaged Bejarano | Held: Bankruptcy court was not misled; trustee knew of claims and abandoned them before suit, so no unfair prejudice to creditors |
| Whether allowing suit would unfairly advantage plaintiff or unfairly harm defendant | Bejarano had no unfair advantage because claims were disclosed and abandoned; trustee could have pursued or settled | Bravo claims trustee’s involvement might have benefited it and omission caused unfairness | Held: No unfair advantage or unfair detriment shown; judicial estoppel inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading-pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard and plausibility requirement)
- Moses v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 606 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial estoppel bars debtor who deliberately fails to disclose pending suit)
- Marshall v. Honeywell Tech. Sys. Inc., 828 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir.) (applying Moses factors; judicial estoppel where claims omitted and later pursued)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (judicial estoppel overview and equitable considerations)
- Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir.) (counsel on resolving doubts against finding inconsistency)