Kambala Wa Kambala v. Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc.
280 F. Supp. 3d 131
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Kambala, a Congolese citizen, was hired by Checchi & Company to work in Mali on a USAID-funded Mali Justice Project and signed a December 11, 2015 Employment Agreement (Deputy Chief of Party) for a one-year term.
- Employment Agreement contains an at-will termination clause (Art. 8(D): 30 days written notice) and a governing-clause (Art. 14) that defers to the USAID Task Order if there is a conflict.
- The Task Order identifies Kambala as "key personnel" and requires contractor notice to and written consent from the Contracting Officer before replacing key personnel (Clause F.7).
- After an altercation with a colleague (Saudubray) in Mali, Checchi investigated and terminated Kambala in October 2016, citing Art. 8(D) in a termination letter from the D.C. office.
- Kambala alleges Checchi told attendees at a November 25, 2016 Rule of Law meeting in Bamako that he was fired for assaulting a superior (defamation), and that the firing was discriminatory (race/national origin) and breached contractual/promissory commitments.
- Procedural posture: Checchi moved for judgment on the pleadings; court grants dismissal of Title VII claim but denies judgment on other claims (DCHRA, defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Title VII to non-U.S. citizen employed abroad | Kambala contends Title VII protects him and he received an EEOC right-to-sue letter | Checchi argues Title VII does not protect non-U.S. citizens employed outside the U.S. | Title VII claim dismissed: non-U.S. citizen employed in Mali is not covered (Shekoyan controlling) |
| Applicability of DCHRA to discriminatory decision | Kambala alleges the termination decision was made in D.C., so DCHRA applies | Checchi argues DCHRA lacks extraterritorial reach and should be read like Title VII | DCHRA claim allowed to proceed: plaintiff plausibly alleged the decision was made in D.C.; Monteilh instructive |
| Sufficiency of defamation pleading | Kambala alleges a Checchi representative told meeting attendees he was fired for assault; the Dutch Embassy First Secretary confirmed it; statement was false and malicious | Checchi argues lack of particularity (no speaker, exact words, or named listeners) mandates dismissal | Defamation claim survives: federal notice pleading (Rule 8) and D.C. authorities do not impose heightened detail; allegations adequate |
| Breach of contract given at-will clause | Kambala argues the Task Order (governing instrument) and key-personnel protection curtailed unilateral termination | Checchi points to Employment Agreement Art. 8(D) at-will clause and Art. 15 (modifications in writing) | Express-contract breach claim survives: plausible conflict between Employment Agreement and Task Order (Clause F.7); discovery required |
| Tortious interference / respondeat superior liability | Kambala seeks to hold Checchi liable for torts by its agents (Agee, Gavagan) affecting his contracts/expectancies | Checchi notes complaint names only individuals for that claim and they haven’t been served | Court construes pro se complaint liberally and allows tortious interference claim against Checchi under respondeat superior |
Key Cases Cited
- Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (non-U.S. citizen employed abroad not covered by Title VII)
- Monteilh v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 982 A.2d 301 (D.C. 2009) (DCHRA can reach discriminatory decisions made in D.C. even if effects are felt elsewhere)
- Rosen v. Am. Israel Pub. Affairs Comm., 41 A.3d 1260 (D.C. 2012) (elements of defamation under D.C. law)
- Brown v. Argenbright Sec., Inc., 782 A.2d 752 (D.C. 2001) (respondeat superior liability for employee torts)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)