Howard University v. Watkins
857 F. Supp. 2d 67
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Howard sues former Acting Dean Watkins for equitable indemnification and claims of misrepresentation and fraud arising from Watkins’ role in Goodwin’s discrimination suit.
- Goodwin, an HIV-positive employee, was not renewed in 2002 after complaints of behavior problems; Howard settled Goodwin’s claims for $253,000.
- Goodwin’s EEOC claim found Watkins’ nonrenewal tied to retaliation for his request for accommodation.
- Howard alleges Watkins knew of harassment by Paulette Porter but failed to discipline Porter and made improper statements about Goodwin.
- Howard asserts that its liability to Goodwin was largely caused by Watkins’ actions, with some blame on Porter and others, but Watkins allegedly blocked accommodations and misrepresented grounds for nonrenewal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable indemnification viability | Howard seeks equitable indemnity due to Watkins’ fault causing Goodwin’s liability. | Northwest Airlines bars indemnity against employees for Title VII liability; DCHRA analysis precludes some indemnity. | Count I plausible; indemnity allowed where equities and relationship warrant it. |
| Fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation pleadings | Counts II–IV allege specific omissions and false statements by Watkins to Howard’s GC/HR and rely on reliance and damages. | Counts lack particularity; no specific statements identified. | Counts II–IV pleaded with particularity and survive Rule 9(b) scrutiny. |
| Application of DC law on indemnity vs. federal scheme | DCHRA supports individual liability and permits equitable indemnity; state-law reference applies. | Federal supremacy concerns limit indemnity against employees for Title VII-type claims. | DCHRA permits individual liability; state-law basis supports equitable indemnity in this context. |
| Failure to tender defense affects indemnity claim | Non-dispositive to pleading; evidence may show opportunity to review settlement. | Failure to tender or obtain approval could bar indemnity. | Not a dispositive barrier; factual dispute over settlement review precludes summary dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northwest Airlines v. Transp. Workers Union, 451 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1981) (no statutory indemnity for Title VII; possible state-law-based remedies exist)
- Good Food Servs., Inc. v. Howard Univ., 608 A.2d 116 (D.C. 1992) (equitable indemnity available to prevent unjust results)
- Washington Hosp. Ctr. v. Washington, 722 A.2d 332 (D.C. 1998) (indemnity to prevent unjust enrichment; misrepresentation considerations)
- C&E Services. v. Ashland, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 2d 242 (D.D.C. 2007) (equitable indemnification to prevent injustice; not limited to contract)
- Fort Lincoln Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055 (D.C. 2008) (elements of fraud and reliance guidance)
- Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (fraud pleading standards under Rule 9(b))
- United States ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., 389 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (fraud pleading standards and reliance considerations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required for complaint to survive)