Islar v. Whole Foods Markets Group, Inc.
217 F. Supp. 3d 261
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Gregory Islar, an African American former Customer Service Team Leader at Whole Foods’ Georgetown store (employed 1996–2013), was terminated on May 2, 2013 after receiving three written reprimands.
- New Store Team Leader Jean Michel Bartolo transferred in January 2013 and, according to Islar, quickly targeted and disciplined him despite Islar not being present for the incidents cited.
- Islar alleges Bartolo terminated many African American employees for minor infractions while sparing non-African American employees.
- Islar complained to regional HR after two reprimands; a mediation occurred but the dispute was unresolved. He received a third reprimand and immediate termination.
- Islar sued Whole Foods asserting: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, (2) breach of implied contract (employee handbook), and (3) negligent retention/supervision. Whole Foods moved to dismiss Count III.
- The district court granted Whole Foods’ motion, dismissing the negligent retention/supervision claim for failure to plead a cognizable common-law predicate under D.C. law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent supervision/retention claim can proceed based on alleged § 1981 violations | Islar relied on § 1981 race-discrimination allegations to support negligent supervision | Whole Foods argued negligent supervision must be predicated on common-law duties, not statutory claims | Court: Negligent supervision cannot be predicated on § 1981; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether negligent supervision can be predicated on breach of implied contract | Islar contended employer breached duty by failing to prevent supervisor’s contractual breaches | Whole Foods argued allowing that would convert every contract breach into a tort and is unsupported by D.C. law | Court: Breach of contract alone cannot serve as the common-law predicate for negligent supervision |
| Whether negligent supervision can be predicated on infliction of emotional distress (not pleaded) | Islar argued negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress could supply the predicate | Whole Foods argued facts do not plead either IIED or negligent infliction under D.C. law | Court: Allegations fail to state IIED or negligent infliction claims; cannot serve as predicate |
| Whether facts alleged suffice to state a negligent supervision claim under Griffin v. Acacia | Islar argued Griffin does not foreclose his theories | Whole Foods argued Griffin requires a common-law duty/tortious predicate and Islar pleaded none | Court: Under Griffin, Islar failed to plead a common-law duty/tort; Count III dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Acacia Life Insurance Co., 925 A.2d 564 (D.C. 2007) (negligent supervision must be grounded in duties imposed by common law, not statutes)
- Phelan v. City of Mount Rainier, 805 A.2d 930 (D.C. 2002) (negligent supervision requires employer knew or should have known of employee incompetence and failed to supervise)
- Daka, Inc. v. McCrae, 839 A.2d 682 (D.C. 2003) (suggestion that servant’s conduct must be independently tortious for negligent supervision)
- Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984) (pleading standards; allegations accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility requirement for complaints)
- Larijani v. Georgetown Univ., 791 A.2d 41 (D.C. 2002) (elements and demanding standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress)