Lott v. Not-For-Profit Hosp. Corp.
319 F. Supp. 3d 277
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Lott, former Chief Compliance Officer at NFPHC, alleges he was terminated after opposing the alleged unlawful termination of a colleague, Sonia Edwards, who was fired while on FMLA leave.
- Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting federal FMLA retaliation and DC Whistleblower (DCWPA) claims, plus DCHRA, D.C. FMLA, and breach of contract claims; Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The court limited its review to the Second Amended Complaint and its attachments, excluding evidentiary exhibits submitted with Lott's opposition that were not part of the operative pleading.
- Key factual allegations: Lott told CEO Small that Edwards’s termination may have violated FMLA/DCHRA; Small instructed HR to reinstate her; HR declined; after raising the issue with a new CEO (Davis), Lott was terminated shortly thereafter.
- Lott also alleges an oral promise of a minimum six-month employment term and termination before that period, forming his breach of contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lott pleaded oppositional conduct under FMLA §2615(a)(2) | Lott contends his conversations with CEOs and HR expressing a good-faith belief Edwards’s firing violated FMLA/DCHRA constituted opposition | NFPHC argues earlier pleading was insufficient and that Lott’s statements were not the requisite opposition | Court: Allegations suffice; Crawford standard (good-faith reasonable belief) met; FMLA retaliation survives dismissal |
| Whether the “manager rule” bars protection where opposition was part of job duties | Lott says his opposition is protected regardless of managerial role | NFPHC urges applying manager rule to bar claim because Lott acted pursuant to job duties | Court: Declines to adopt manager rule for FMLA; follows DeMasters reasoning; manager rule does not bar claim |
| Whether Lott pleaded oppositional conduct under DCHRA | Lott relies on same oppositional activity as FMLA | NFPHC contends Lott did not oppose conduct unlawful under DCHRA and thus must plead aiding/encouraging theory | Court: Lott sufficiently alleged oppositional conduct; DCHRA retaliation claim stands without separate aiding/encouraging allegations |
| Whether DCWPA covers Lott and permits suit against NFPHC | Lott argues DCWPA’s broad definition of "employee" and "District" encompass NFPHC and its employees | NFPHC argues its employees are excluded and DCWPA authorizes suit only against the District, not NFPHC | Court: DCWPA’s definition of "employee" includes employees of instrumentalities like NFPHC; "District" read to include such entities for purposes of suit; DCWPA claim proceeds |
| Whether Lott states breach of contract claim | Lott asserts an oral promise of at least six months employment and termination before that period | NFPHC argues allegation is too vague and relies on unnamed speaker | Court: Pleading adequately describes essential contract terms and alleged breach; claim survives dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (defines "oppose" in retaliation statutes; protects good-faith reasonable belief)
- Gordon v. U.S. Capitol Police, 778 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (FMLA anti-retaliation construed like Title VII)
- DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 796 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2015) (rejects manager rule in Title VII retaliation context)
- Hurd v. District of Columbia Government, 864 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (limits materials considered on Rule 12(b)(6) to complaint, attached documents, and judicially noticeable matters)
- Nattah v. Bush, 605 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (plaintiff need not name individual who made alleged oral employment promise at pleading stage)
- Mova Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (statutory interpretation should avoid absurd results)