Harris v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority
416 U.S. App. D.C. 242
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Anthony S. Harris worked 16 years for the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) and received regular commendations for improvements to maintenance operations.
- Beginning ~2009 Harris observed alleged racial discrimination: numerous Black employees were terminated and replaced by white employees; WASA also hired many (arguably marginal) contractors.
- Harris sent letters in Jan. and Feb. 2011 to the Mayor and D.C. Council complaining about racial discrimination; WASA knew of the complaint by May 2011.
- Harris took medical leave for kidney surgery in October 2011; while on leave WASA informed him his position had been abolished and he was terminated, though the job functions continued and he was not offered other vacancies.
- Harris sued alleging Title VII retaliation and § 1981 claims, plus D.C. law claims (including D.C. FMLA). The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to plausibly allege causation and declined supplemental jurisdiction over local claims.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo whether Harris’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to render a retaliation claim plausible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges causation for Title VII/§1981 retaliation | Harris: letters in Jan/Feb were protected opposition; WASA knew by May; termination in Oct. plus strong job performance and continued job functions render causation plausible | WASA: 5-month gap is too long for temporal proximity; medical leave intervened and could be the real cause; position abolition is a legitimate reason | Reversed dismissal: complaint alleged temporal proximity plus facts (good performance, continued job functions, no opportunity to apply) supporting an inference of pretext and causation sufficient to survive 12(b)(6) |
| Whether the alleged position abolition defeats inference of retaliation | Harris: alleged abolition was pretext because job functions continued and he wasn’t offered other openings | WASA: abolition is a legitimate, non-retaliatory explanation | Court: factual allegations permit a reasonable inference that abolition was pretextual; not resolved at pleading stage |
| Whether the medical leave severs causal chain | Harris: protected activity, not leave, led to termination | WASA: medical leave was intervening cause and could explain termination | Court: possible defense for WASA at discovery/summary judgment, but does not render Harris’s pleading implausible now |
| Whether dismissal of federal claims required dismissal of state claims | Harris: federal claims should survive, so state claims should be reinstated | WASA: N/A at this stage | Court: Because federal claims were reinstated on appeal, reversal of dismissal of state claims follows; remand to proceed on all claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies plausibility standard and rejects conclusory allegations)
- Kassem v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 513 F.3d 251 (de novo review of 12(b)(6))
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (elements of retaliation claim)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (eliminating common legitimate reasons can support inference of discrimination/retaliation)
- Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135 (discusses common legitimate reasons for termination)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity requires very close timing to establish causation alone)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading standards in employment discrimination suits)