Johnson v. Interstate Management Co., LLC
871 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- Johnson, employed as a cook at the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, was terminated in March 2011.
- He previously filed an EEOC complaint on October 10, 2010 alleging discrimination under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA.
- Thererafter he received disciplinary actions for sanitation/food-prep infractions, including a February 2010 incident and January–February 2011 incidents.
- He filed a second EEOC retaliation complaint on April 22, 2011 asserting his discharge was retaliatory for EEOC filing; the EEOC dismissed this charge on June 13, 2011.
- The complaint was submitted for in forma pauperis filing on September 12, 2011 and docketed September 20, 2011; Judge Huvelle addressed Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, timeliness, OSHA, Peters in her individual capacity, and attorney’s fees.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing OSHA retaliation and Peters in their individual capacities, while allowing retaliation claims under Title VII/ADEA/ADA to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the federal filing | Johnson’s filing tolls the 90-day period during IFP review | Complaint was untimely under 90-day rule | Timely due to tolling during IFP processing |
| OSHA retaliation claim viability | Retaliation for OSHA complaint exists | OSHA retaliation not privately actionable | OSHA retaliation claim dismissed (no private right of action) |
| Individual capacity liability of Peters | Peters liable for retaliation | No individual capacity liability for retaliation under Title VII/ADEA/ADA | Claims against Peters in her personal capacity dismissed |
| Scope of retaliation claims surviving | Retaliation claims under Title VII/ADEA/ADA should proceed | Some claims fail or are time-barred | Retaliation claims not time-barred; preserved for further adjudication |
| Attorney’s fees | Defendant should bear fees if dismissed | Fees not appropriate if complaint not dismissed in entirety | Fees denied because some claims survived and no total dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading; not mere conclusory statements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requirement of plausible grounds for relief; more than labels or formulaic recitation)
- Ruiz v. Vilsack, 763 F. Supp. 2d 168 (D.D.C. 2011) (tolls 90-day period when filing IFP application)
- Guillén v. The Nat’l Grange, 955 F. Supp. 144 (D.D.C. 1997) (tolling during court processing of IFP; limitations defense)
- Kone v. District of Columbia, 808 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2011) (delay between filing receipt and docketing not plaintiff’s fault)
- Kennard v. Louis Zimmer Commun’cns, Inc., 632 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (OSHA private right of action not provided; remedy via Secretary of Labor)
- Braun v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 635 F. Supp. 75 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (no private action for OSHA retaliation; exclusive remedies)