787 F.3d 1120
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Appellants allege Defense Base Act claims for injuries to class members working overseas for US contractors.
- District court dismissed all class-wide tort claims, RICO, and Longshore Act claims as barred by exclusive remedies.
- Base Act and Longshore Act exclusivity provisions are argued to bar supplementary state-law torts and federal claims.
- Three individual appellants (Clark, Kreesha, Alsaleh) asserted ADA claims, which district court dismissed for lack of ADA eligibility.
- Appellants sought reconsideration and leave to amend; district court denied, later appealed.
- Court affirms dismissal of class-wide torts, RICO, and Longshore Act claims; remands ADA leave-to-amend issue for explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are class-wide tort claims barred by exclusivity? | Base Act/Longshore exclusivity does not bar intentional torts. | Exclusivity covers all liabilities; Hall controls. | Yes; class-wide tort claims barred. |
| Do Base Act/Longshore Act exclusivity provisions preclude RICO claims? | RICO predicated on misrepresentations outside statutory remedies. | Exclusive remedies leave no room for RICO claims. | Yes; RICO claims barred. |
| Are Longshore Act discrimination claims properly exhausted and dismissed? | Administrative remedies available; exhaustion not shown. | No exhaustion evidenced; dismissal appropriate. | Yes; Longshore Act claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Was the ADA denial to amend properly handled? | district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend. | ADA claims should be barred or require different approach. | Remand; district court must explain denial and consider amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. C&P Telephone Co., 809 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (exclusive remedy governs tort claims under Base/Longshore framework)
- Martin v. Travelers Ins. Co., 497 F.2d 329 (1st Cir. 1974) (narrow exception to exclusivity rejected in this context)
- Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (liberal Rule 15(a) amendment standard; abuse of discretion considerations)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (leave to amend; need reasoned explanation for denial when dismissal with prejudice)
- Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (ADA substantial limitation and reasonable accommodation standards discussed)
- Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1985) (criticizing Martin; emphasizes exclusivity framework)