McCaskill v. Gallaudet University
36 F. Supp. 3d 145
D.D.C.2014Background
- McCaskill, Gallaudet University's Chief Diversity Officer, faced internal controversy after signing a Maryland same-sex marriage petition.
- Following the petition disclosure, Gallaudet placed McCaskill on administrative leave and ultimately demoted her, citing concerns about advocacy for the university's gay community.
- Plaintiff alleged that the decision was motivated by her race, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, and political affiliation, and that redress was not provided after the furor subsided.
- Bienvenu and Smith, two university employees, publicly criticized McCaskill and allegedly spoke to PlanetDeafQueer.com; plaintiff later dismissed these two defendants to preserve diversity jurisdiction.
- Gallaudet moved to dismiss on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds and to argue that Bienvenu and Smith were indispensable under Rule 19; the court addressed these arguments before reaching the merits.
- The court ultimately granted the university’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, dismissing all counts without prejudice, while declining to require joinder of the two former employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indispensable parties under Rule 19 | McCaskill argues Bienvenu and Smith are indispensable | Gallaudet contends joinder is required and would destroy diversity | No indispensable parties; case may proceed |
| Discriminatory treatment under DCHRA | McCaskill suffered adverse actions due to protected status | Gallaudet contends no protected-class-based motive is pleaded | Dismissed; no plausible protected-class discrimination shown |
| Retaliation under DCHRA | McCaskill faced adverse action for protected activity | No statutorily protected activity identified; actions unrelated to protected activity | Dismissed; no protected activity established |
| Hostile work environment under DCHRA | Alleged pervasive conduct created an abusive environment based on protected status | Allegations do not meet severity or basis required for a hostile-work-environment claim | Dismissed; standards not met |
| Effects clause and disparate impact | McCaskill claims practices disproportionately affected protected class | Plaintiff fails to identify a specific practice with disproportionate impact | Dismissed; not actionable under the clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must contain facts plausibly suggesting claimed conduct)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (protected activity standard under DCHRA retaliation)
- Blodgett v. University Club, 930 A.2d 210 (D.C. 2007) (narrow interpretation of political affiliation under DCHRA)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (hostile environment standard in employment discrimination)
- Guilford Transp. Indus. v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (protective scope of statements in public-interest contexts)
- Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apt. Corp., 439 F.2d 477 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (special relationship duty and foreseeability doctrine)
- Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (elements of defamation under D.C. law)