Dickerson v. District of Columbia
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138970
D.D.C.2014Background
- Twenty-two DCPS principals and assistant principals alleged non-reappointment in 2008 and 2009 under Chancellor Michelle Rhee.
- Plaintiffs allege race and age discrimination, defamation, and various common-law and federal-law claims arising from non-reappointments and subsequent retirement-retreat issues.
- The District of Columbia moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting CMPA preemption and other defects.
- Several common-law claims are argued to be preempted by CMPA; some potential CMPA-exhaustion issues were addressed in prior proceedings.
- Plaintiffs sought to preserve discrimination claims under DC Human Rights Act and federal statutes (Title VII, ADEA, and 1981), though the complaint frames them inconsistently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CMPA preempt most common-law claims and affect jurisdiction? | CMPA not fully applicable; some claims remain non-CMPA based. | CMPA preempts most common-law claims; warrants dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. | CMPA preempts breach of contract, defamation, and civil conspiracy; limited jurisdiction preserved for certain discrimination claims. |
| Are DC Human Rights Act discrimination claims properly in administrative (OHR) forum rather than court? | Discrimination claims could proceed in court due to alleged CBA breach and process gaps. | CBA requires OHR as exclusive forum for DC Human Rights Act claims. | DC Human Rights Act discrimination claims are limited to OHR procedures; dismissal of those claims in court. |
| Can Title VII and ADEA discrimination claims be stated in the Third Amended Complaint? | Plaintiffs intended to pursue Title VII and ADEA claims; EEOC letters exist for some plaintiffs. | No explicit counts or adequate pleading; insufficient under current complaint. | Claims under Title VII and ADEA dismissed without prejudice to amendment. |
| Does §1981 claim survive against a District policymaker (Rhee) for race discrimination in employment decisions? | Rhee as policymaker violated §1981 in non-reappointment decisions. | §1981 claim allowed as against policymaker; still viable. | §1981 claim survives against Rhee; is properly pleaded. |
| Is ERISA applicable to DC government employee retirement plans? | ERISA rights were implicated by retirement issues. | ERISA excludes governmental plans, including DC government, from coverage. | ERISA claim dismissed; governmental plan exclusion applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 748 A.2d 409 (D.C. 2000) (CMPA preemption; workplace claims generally covered by CMPA; discrimination claims carve out)
- Coleman v. Dist. of Columbia, 80 A.3d 1028 (D.C. 2013) (CMPA preemption and scope; comprehensive merit system)
- Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, 552 F.3d 806 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional/exhaustion issues under CMPA)
- Thompson v. Dist. of Columbia, 593 A.2d 621 (D.C. 1991) (exhaustion and CMPA preemption principles)
- Baker v. Dist. of Columbia, 785 A.2d 696 (D.C. 2001) (CMPA preempts emotional distress, defamation claims)
- Lewis v. Dist. of Columbia Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 987 A.2d 1134 (D.C. 2010) (public policy and preemption under CMPA; administrative remedies)
- Myers, Univ. of Dist. of Columbia v. Bd. of Trustees, 652 A.2d 642 (D.C. 1995) (exhaustion and CMPA preemption)
- Davis v. Community Alternatives of Washington, D.C., Inc., 74 A.3d 707 (D.C. 2013) (public policy and wrongful termination in discrimination context)