Lanier v. Stackley
253 F. Supp. 3d 75
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Maurice A. Lanier was employed as a laundry attendant at Navy Gateway Inns & Suites from April 1, 2016 to August 19, 2016 and was terminated during his probationary period for attendance and conduct.
- Lanier alleges termination was race-based and retaliatory for taking emergency leave (Aug 8–10, 2016) and that he worked in a hostile environment.
- Two prospective employers rescinded offers after his termination.
- Lanier contacted an EEO counselor on October 26, 2016 and filed a formal complaint on December 5, 2016; CNIC dismissed the complaint as untimely under the 45‑day rule.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion after the court warned that an unopposed dispositive motion may be treated as conceded.
- The Court addressed the merits and found (1) Lanier failed to timely contact an EEO counselor and (2) his factual allegations do not state a hostile work environment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to exhaust administrative remedies (45‑day EEO contact) | Lanier contends he contacted an EEO counselor and pursued a complaint (after pro bono advice) | Lanier did not contact a counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory act; administrative exhaustion is mandatory | Court: Lanier failed to timely contact a counselor; claim dismissed for failure to exhaust |
| Equitable tolling of the 45‑day period | Lanier asserted he was unaware of filing time limits | Defendant argues no grounds for tolling shown | Court: Complaint does not plead facts supporting equitable tolling; no tolling applied |
| Hostile work environment claim sufficiency | Lanier alleges overwork, being interrogated about theft, and racialized comments toward black employees | Defendant argues alleged incidents are not severe or pervasive enough to state a claim | Court: Allegations, even taken together, are insufficient to plausibly plead a hostile work environment; claim dismissed |
| Effect of local rule/nonresponse on disposition | Not argued substantively by Lanier (no opposition filed) | Defendant invoked Local Civ. R. 7(b) and moved to dismiss on merits | Court: Cited D.C. Cir. caution about treating motions as conceded but reached merits and granted dismissal on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (caution about automatically granting unopposed dispositive motions under local rules)
- Greer v. Paulson, 505 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (failure to contact EEO counselor within 45 days warrants dismissal)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 792 F.3d 166 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (hostile work environment requires cumulative actionable acts)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insult)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishing discrete acts from hostile work environment claims)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (defining severe or pervasive for hostile work environment)
- In re James, 444 F.3d 643 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (describing the pre-complaint EEO counseling process)
- Akosile v. Armed Forces Ret. Home, 938 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2013) (negative supervisor interactions ordinarily insufficient for hostile work environment)
- Newton v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 840 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D.D.C. 2012) (undesirable job responsibilities and workload do not meet severe and pervasive standard)