Duberry v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
898 F. Supp. 2d 294
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff Duberry, proceeding pro se, filed claims in this Court after removal from DC Superior Court.
- Plaintiff alleges termination as a security guard for accessing pornographic sites on duty and seeks multiple remedies.
- Defendant Inter-Con Security Systems moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), later converted to summary judgment.
- Court analyzes Title VII retaliation, public policy retaliation, defamation, and constitutional claims against a private employer.
- Key dates: alleged retaliatory act July 2, 2010; EEOC intake April 1, 2011; EEOC charge November 30, 2011; defamation event Sept 29, 2010; action filed February 7, 2012.
- Court holds plaintiff’s Title VII and defamation claims time-barred, public policy retaliation fails for lack of causation, and constitutional claims fail as private employer not state actor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Title VII claims time-barred? | Duberry contends timely EEOC filing within 300 days tolls claims. | Claims untimely because EEOC charge filed after 300-day window. | Title VII claims time-barred. |
| Does an EEOC intake questionnaire toll the limitations period? | Intake questionnaire within deadline tolls rights. | Questionnaire does not toll or substitute for a charge. | Intake questionnaire does not toll the deadline. |
| Is the public policy retaliation claim viable? | Termination in retaliation for whistle-blowing violates public policy. | Cannot show causation between protected activity and termination. | Public policy retaliation fails for lack of causation. |
| Is the defamation claim timely? | Defamation occurred during termination proceedings. | One-year statute of limitations applies; claim untimely. | Defamation claim time-barred. |
| Do constitutional claims survive against a private employer? | Due process rights violated by private employer during termination process. | No state action; private employer not subject to Fourteenth Amendment due process. | Constitutional claims fail; no state action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; liberal construction when pro se)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (conclusory statements insufficient)
- Park v. Howard, 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (intake questionnaire not equivalent to EEOC charge)
- Dyson v. District of Columbia, 808 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2011) (EEOC intake forms do not toll deadlines)
- Di Lella v. Univ. of the District of Columbia, 570 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (one-year defamation limit in DC; accrual at publication)
- Price v. Union Local 25, 787 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2011) (due process against private entities; state action requirement)
- Bryant v. Brownlee, 265 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2003) (causation in retaliation claims precludes liability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)