Demissie v. Starbucks Corporate Office and Headquarters
19 F. Supp. 3d 321
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Rahel A. Demissie (pro se) worked at Starbucks beginning January 2010 and alleges foreign-born employees were not given regular performance reviews or pay increases while others were.
- Demissie complained to store and district managers and to HR; after HR involvement she alleges retaliatory actions (manager told her and her sister they could not work at the same store; later her hours were reduced).
- Demissie filed a discrimination charge with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the EEOC on November 14, 2012, alleging national-origin discrimination and that she believed she had been retaliated against; EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice August 15, 2013.
- Starbucks moved to dismiss in part for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and initially challenged timeliness but withdrew the timeliness contention; the court considered documents submitted with the motion.
- The Court dismissed without prejudice some allegations? (Note: court dismissed certain claims with prejudice) — ultimately the court dismissed race- and gender-based discrimination claims and the retaliation claim based on reduced hours for failure to exhaust, leaving national-origin discrimination (failure to give reviews/raises) and retaliation for barring Demissie and her sister from working together.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Demissie exhausted administrative remedies for race- and gender-based discrimination | Demissie alleged discrimination generally in complaint (race/gender included) | Starbucks noted EEOC charge alleged only national-origin discrimination | Dismissed: race- and gender-based claims not exhausted and are dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Demissie exhausted administrative remedies for retaliation based on reduced hours | Demissie alleges hours were reduced starting Sept. 17, 2012 and is retaliatory | Starbucks points out the EEOC charge did not mention reduced hours and the claim arose before the charge | Dismissed: retaliation claim based on reduced hours not exhausted and dismissed with prejudice |
| Proper scope of Title VII suit after EEOC right-to-sue | Demissie seeks to proceed on discrimination and retaliation claims raised in federal complaint | Starbucks sought dismissal of unexhausted/time-barred claims | Surviving claims limited to national-origin discrimination (failure to give reviews/raises) and retaliation for being told she and her sister could not work together |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (EEOC charge is jurisdictional prerequisite to Title VII suit)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (each discrete discriminatory act requires its own administrative charge)
- Ndondji v. InterPark Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.D.C. 2011) (retaliation claims predating EEOC filing must be exhausted)