Hudes v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97426
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Karen Hudes, a World Bank attorney, alleges wrongful termination and various federal/state-law claims against the World Bank and others.
- World Bank is an international organization; its immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) is central to the case.
- Plaintiff claims retaliation for whistleblowing on securities-law violations and internal-control lapses, with events occurring around 2007.
- Defendants include the World Bank, Aetna Life Insurance Co., Mark Schreiber, and KPMG; she also mentions John/Jane Does 1-99.
- Plaintiff’s pleadings mix employment, securities, privacy, HIPAA, and Maryland-law claims, with no coherent federal cause of action clearly pleaded.
- The court grants the motions to dismiss all federal claims with prejudice and declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the World Bank enjoys immunity from suit for wrongful termination | Article VII waives immunity for some claims to bondholders. | IOIA immunity is absolute for internal-employment claims; waiver is narrow and not triggered here. | Bank immunity applies; wrongful-termination claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims against the Bank survive | Whistleblower protections apply to the Bank to allow direct federal actions. | Bank is not a 'company' under SOX § 1514A and Dodd-Frank does not authorize such claims here; exhaustion and jurisdiction issues apply. | SOX claim against the Bank fails and is dismissed; Dodd-Frank reliance is unavailing. |
| Whether KPMG’s alleged violations support a § 11 Securities Act claim | KPMG’s audit misreports render securities claims actionable against KPMG. | World Bank bonds are exempted securities; § 11 does not apply to World Bank bonds. | No § 11 claim against KPMG; claim is dismissed. |
| Whether HIPAA and related claims against Aetna may be privately enforced | Aetna violated HIPAA by disclosing confidential medical records. | HIPAA does not create a private right of action; state-law claims remain without federal basis. | HIPAA claim dismissed; no private right of action; pendent-state claims dismissed. |
| Whether the court should retain pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims | State claims are tied to the federal issues and should be heard. | With all federal claims eliminated, pendant jurisdiction should not be exercised. | Court declines pendant jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendaro v. The World Bank, 717 F.2d 610 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (immunity waivers are narrow; internal operations not waived)
- Atkinson v. Inter-American Development Bank, 156 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Bank immunity not waived unless waiver furthers Bank’s objectives)
- Osseiran v. International Finance Corp., 552 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (distinguishes external vs internal waivers of immunity)
- Johnson v. Quander, 370 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2005) (HIPAA private right of action not available; jurisdictional notes)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1988) (pendent jurisdiction factors: judicial economy, convenience, fairness)
- Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (pleading standards require plausible claims; not bare accusations)
- Abbey & Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (considering documents incorporated by reference in motions)