Lott v. Not-For-Profit Hosp. Corp.
373 F. Supp. 3d 92
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff John Lott, former Chief Compliance Officer at Not-For-Profit Hospital Corporation (NFPHC), alleges FMLA retaliation after he protested the termination of a coworker who was on FMLA leave and was himself terminated shortly thereafter.
- Plaintiff asserts one federal claim (FMLA retaliation) and four D.C. law claims (D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act, D.C. Human Rights Act retaliation, D.C. FMLA retaliation, and breach of contract).
- NFPHC is an instrumentality created by the District of Columbia; its organic statute contains a "sue and be sued" clause and provisions preserving employee rights transferred from the predecessor private hospital (United Medical Center).
- Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting sovereign immunity from the FMLA retaliation claim, arguing (1) Coleman limits FMLA abrogation (self‑care provision) and (2) the D.C. Council did not waive immunity for NFPHC despite the sue‑and‑be‑sued clause.
- Plaintiff conceded NFPHC is an instrumentality but argued the NFPHC Act waives sovereign immunity by preserving transferred employees’ existing rights and by including the sue‑and‑be‑sued clause.
- The court denied the motion: it held that, read in context, the NFPHC Act unequivocally waives immunity for employment‑law claims like the FMLA retaliation claim, so the court has subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District waived sovereign immunity for NFPHC as to FMLA retaliation claims via the NFPHC Act | NFPHC Act's "sue and be sued" clause and provisions preserving employees' prior rights (from private UMC) show an unequivocal statutory waiver for employment claims | D.C. did not intend to waive sovereign immunity for instrumentalities; the sue‑and‑be‑sued clause does not establish waiver and Coleman limits FMLA abrogation | Court: The NFPHC Act, read in context, plainly waives immunity for employment‑law claims including FMLA retaliation; jurisdiction exists |
| Whether a federal presumption that a sue‑and‑be‑sued clause waives immunity applies to a D.C. instrumentality | (Implicit) Plaintiff relies on that presumption as supporting waiver | Defendant: Federal presumption for federal instrumentalities does not automatically apply to state/D.C. instrumentalities; D.C. law may not adopt that presumption | Court: Declines to decide whether the federal presumption applies under D.C. law; unnecessary because waiver is plain from statutory text |
| Effect of Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland on the viability of the retaliation claim | Lott's retaliation claim is based on opposing employer's violation of FMLA rights of another (not the self‑care provision) | Defendant: Coleman held Congress did not abrogate sovereign immunity for the FMLA self‑care provision, so Coleman may bar Lott's claim if it rests on self‑care | Court: Not dispositive here because NFPHC Act waives immunity for employment claims; court exercises jurisdiction over the FMLA retaliation claim |
| Whether court must dismiss remaining D.C. claims if immunity found for federal claim | N/A (Plaintiff sought to proceed) | Defendant: If no jurisdiction over federal claim, court should decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss all claims | Court: Because it finds statutory waiver and maintains jurisdiction over the federal claim, it denied the motion and did not reach dismissal of remaining claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (superseding abrogation of sovereign immunity under FMLA does not extend to the self‑care provision)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (federal instrumentality sue‑and‑be‑sued clause and waiver principles)
- George Hyman Constr. Co. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 816 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir.) (state instrumentalities require state‑law inquiry re: sue‑and‑be‑sued clauses)
- Watters v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 295 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir.) (standards for finding waiver of sovereign immunity for instrumentalities)
- Ogugua v. Not‑For‑Profit Hospital Corp., 217 F.Supp.3d 76 (D.D.C.) (prior D.D.C. opinion addressing presumption of waiver under NFPHC Act)
- Tucci v. District of Columbia, 956 A.2d 684 (D.C. 2008) ("unequivocally expressed in statutory text" standard for waiver of sovereign immunity)