Cole v. Boeing Inc.
901 F. Supp. 2d 47
D.D.C.2012Background
- Deborah Cole sued Boeing in DC Superior Court alleging DC and Virginia gender discrimination and retaliation under the DCHRA; Boeing removed the case to federal court and most claims were dismissed, leaving only a DC-based retaliation claim under the DCHRA.
- Cole sought to amend to add Title VII as a ground, to cover Virginia events; the court allowed amendment only to DC events under Title VII paired with DCHRA retaliation.
- The court previously held DCHRA claims based on Virginia conduct were outside DC, and that Title VII venue requirements would govern any such amendment.
- The proposed amendment was analyzed in four parts: Counts I–III based on Parts B/C (Virginia) generally futile; Part A-based Count II (DC) potentially viable; Part A-based Count I still futile.
- The court ultimately granted leave to amend only to add a Title VII claim to the DC-based DCHRA retaliation claim (Part A) and ordered an amended complaint omitting Virginia conduct, with Counts One and Two permissible only for DC events.
- The memorializing Order requires the Amended Complaint to address DC retaliation under Title VII and DC retaliation under the DCHRA, excluding Virginia allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cole may amend as of right under Rule 15(a)(1). | Cole argues she had a right to amend after Boeing moved to dismiss. | Boeing asserts amendment as of right expired under the post-2009 Rule 15(a)(1) timeline. | No; amendment as of right is unavailable; leave under Rule 15(a)(2) required. |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted for Counts I–III under Rule 15(a)(2). | Cole seeks to add Title VII claims for Virginia events and DC-based retaliation. | Venue and futility concerns render most amendments improper; Virginia events not properly venued. | Leave granted only to the extent of adding Title VII to the DC-based DCHRA retaliation claim (Part A); other amendments denied. |
| Whether venue is proper for proposed Counts based on Parts B/C (Virginia). | DC venue should be permissible under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). | Venue not proper for Virginia-based events; records and principal office located outside DC. | Venue improper for Parts B/C; only Part A remains within DC venue. |
| Whether Counts I–III based on Part A may proceed. | DC retaliation death claims under DC venues should be allowed; Title VII parity with DCHRA. | District venue supports DC-only claims; but prior dismissals of the discrimination/hostile environment under DCHRA cannot be resurrected. | Count II (Title VII retaliation, Part A) permitted; Counts I (discrimination) and III (DCHRA retaliation) based on Part A are not, as to those theories, permitted in this posture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nattah v. Bush, 605 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (amendment as of right under Rule 15(a)(1) not available after removal)
- Dehaemers v. Western Wynne, 522 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D.D.C. 2007) (venue for Title VII claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3))
- Willoughby v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 100 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (venue considerations for Title VII amendments)
- James v. Booz-Allen, 227 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2002) (venue and forum considerations for Title VII actions)
- Spencer v. Rumsfeld, 209 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2002) (logic on venue and elements of discrimination claims)
- Darby v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002) (venue and scope for employment discrimination actions)
- Donell v. Nat’l Guard Bureau, 568 F. Supp. 93 (D.D.C. 1983) (basic venue principles for nationwide employers)
- Howell v. Gray, 843 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2012) (factors for granting leave to amend)