Doe v. Siddig
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104227
D.D.C.2011Background
- Doe, a Sudanese citizen, alleges nineteen years of employment as a domestic servant and nanny for Siddig and Suliman in Virginia.
- In 1990, aged 14, Doe moved to the U.S. under an A-3 visa after a contract promising minimum wage and schooling was arranged.
- Defendants allegedly underpaid Doe for years and withheld the majority of her earnings, sending part to Sudan.
- Doe was isolated, had her passport confiscated, and was barred from leaving the home or contacting family without fear.
- She escaped in 2009 and the lawsuit, filed in 2010, asserts thirteen claims spanning involuntary servitude, TVPA violations, contract, wage, false imprisonment, fraud, and torts.
- The court grants-in-part and denies-in-part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, with notable tolling and retroactivity considerations remaining for discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Involuntary servitude claim under Thirteenth Amendment and §1584/§1595 | Doe seeks relief for acts predating 2008 under §1595. | Defendants argue retroactivity and lack of private right. | Limited remedy for conduct from 2008-2009; exclusion for pre-2008 acts. |
| TVPA claims for forced labor and trafficking | Doe contends retroactive private right under §1595 for §1589/§1590. | §1595 not retroactive for pre-2003 conduct. | Deny dismissal for post-2003 conduct; dismiss pre-2003 acts. |
| Equitable tolling of statutes of limitation | Equitable tolling should apply given ongoing abuse and travel restrictions. | Limitations time is not tolled absent clear basis. | Equitable tolling plausible; issues to be developed with record. |
| FLSA claim viability | Wage violations alleged with specific below-minimum wages. | Conclusory pleading server responsibility. | FLSA claim survives dismissal. |
| False imprisonment | Defendants’ restraint through fear and control suffices under Virginia law. | Must show direct physical restraint. | Plausible based on totality of allegations; proceed to discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (presumption against retroactivity in statutory amendments)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requirement of plausible factual allegations to state a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Mondy v. Sec’y of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (equitable tolling considerations in complex matters)
- Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 573 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C. 2008) (application of tolling and borrowing statutes of limitations)
- Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (equitable considerations in fee-shifting and limitations defenses)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling standard for nonjurisdictional statutes of limitations)
- Gonzalez Paredes v. Vila, 479 F.Supp.2d 187 (D.D.C. 2007) (diplomatic immunity considerations in limitations)