Bing v. Architect of the Capitol
Civil Action No. 2016-2121
| D.D.C. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Wayne Bing, an African American former AOC employee, sued the Architect of the Capitol for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) after his September 2015 termination.
- Bing filed an AOC counseling request on February 1, 2016; the CAA’s 180-day filing window therefore cut off acts before August 5, 2015 unless they were part of a timely hostile work environment claim.
- Bing’s Amended Complaint alleges race discrimination and retaliation and describes a “discriminatory environment” and several discrete adverse acts (false accusations, disciplinary proposals) before termination; it does not explicitly plead a hostile work environment claim.
- In administrative filings and his original (now-superseded) complaint, Bing had described a hostile work environment, and he raised the hostile-work-environment/continuing-violation argument in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
- The Architect moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to acts before August 5, 2015 arguing Bing failed to exhaust those claims under the CAA; it also contended (in the alternative) that Bing’s alleged acts are not severe or pervasive enough to state a hostile work environment.
- The Court found Bing did not clearly plead a hostile work environment in the Amended Complaint, but because the defendant had sufficient notice from prior filings, the Court denied the partial motion to dismiss and granted Bing leave to amend to plead a hostile work environment claim more definitively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acts before Aug. 5, 2015 are time-barred under the CAA | Bing: earlier acts are part of a continuing hostile work environment; termination within 180 days makes earlier acts timely under Morgan | AOC: Amended Complaint contains no hostile work environment claim; discrete pre-cutoff acts are untimely | Court: Denied partial dismissal; Bing may amend to plead hostile work environment; pre-cutoff acts may be timely if part of the same hostile environment and one act falls within the filing period |
| Whether the Amended Complaint pleads a hostile work environment | Bing: argues in opposition that the Amended Complaint supports hostile-work-environment treatment | AOC: complaint never uses that label and the factual allegations are insufficient notice | Court: Amended Complaint did not clearly plead the claim, but prior administrative complaint and original complaint gave defendant notice; plaintiff granted leave to amend |
| Whether discrete acts (including termination) can be part of hostile work environment to invoke continuing-violation doctrine | Bing: termination can be one act falling within the filing period linking earlier acts into one unlawful practice under Morgan | AOC: Morgan bars relying on discrete acts outside the filing period; termination is a discrete act and cannot revive earlier untimely claims | Court: Circuit precedent permits discrete acts to be part of a coherent hostile-work-environment claim if adequately linked; court did not resolve sufficiency now and allowed amendment |
| Whether the alleged acts are sufficiently severe or pervasive | Bing: asserts the aggregate environment and acts constitute hostile environment (to be fleshed out in amendment) | AOC: alleged acts are petty, isolated, and insufficiently severe or pervasive to state hostile-work-environment | Court: Did not decide on the merits of severity/pervasiveness; warned plaintiff to plead facts meeting that standard in any amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile-work-environment claims may include acts outside the filing period if part of same unlawful practice and one act falls within the period)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Title VII hostile-work-environment standard: sufficiently severe or pervasive)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile-work-environment recognized under Title VII)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir.) (discrete acts can support both individual claims and a hostile-work-environment claim if adequately connected)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction)