Moore v. Howard University
Civil Action No. 2017-0008
| D.D.C. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Jessie Moore, a Howard University security guard, sued Howard University and three university officers (Allen Lacey, Eugene Bentley, Lorraine Kittrell) after his termination, asserting eight claims (statutory and common law).
- Core facts: two racially tinged remarks by Allen Lacey in August 2016; Moore reported the remarks to Deputy Chief Bentley; on August 19, 2016 Moore received a written reprimand for a parking infraction he alleges was false and refused to sign it; he was terminated less than three weeks later.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); the court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply and evaluated the claims on the pleadings.
- Plaintiff pressed Title VII claims (race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation), and state common-law claims including wrongful discharge, negligent supervision/retention, fraud, and breach of contract (collective bargaining avt. claim).
- The court dismissed all claims against the Individual Defendants and all claims against Howard University except the Title VII race-discrimination claim (Count I), which survived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore pleaded Title VII racial discrimination (Count I) | Moore alleges he was fired because of his race based on remarks and circumstances leading to termination | Individual defendants and Howard argue no inference of race discrimination because all involved are African American | Court: Title VII claim against Howard survives; but Title VII does not permit individual-capacity liability, so claims against Individual Defendants dismissed |
| Hostile work environment (Count II) | Two racially referenced statements by Lacey plus termination conduct created an abusive environment | Statements were uncivil but not severe or pervasive enough to state hostile-work-environment claim | Court: Dismissed for failure to plead severe or pervasive conduct; cannot convert discrete termination into hostile-environment claim |
| Retaliation for complaining about discrimination (Count III) | Moore says he complained to Bentley about Lacey’s race-based remarks and then was terminated in retaliation | Defendants: Moore never alleged a complaint that put employer on notice of unlawful discrimination | Court: Dismissed because complaint did not sufficiently allege protected EEO complaint (no clear allegation of unlawful discrimination) |
| Wrongful discharge under D.C. law (Count IV) | Moore refused to sign reprimand, which allegedly would have required him to commit second-degree fraud; he was fired for the refusal | Defendants: Moore pleaded no facts showing he was asked to commit a statutory violation (no scheme, no property over $1,000) | Court: Dismissed — Moore failed to plead elements of second-degree fraud required to sustain wrongful-discharge exception to at-will employment |
| Negligent supervision and negligent retention (Counts V–VI) | Howard failed to supervise/retain Lacey and others, causing harm | Defendants: Claims lack an underlying common-law duty or independent tort as required in D.C. law | Court: Dismissed for failure to plead an independent common-law basis for these claims |
| Common-law fraud (Count VII) | Defendants committed fraud by insisting Moore sign a false reprimand | Defendants: Moore did not reasonably rely on the alleged misrepresentation (he refused to sign) | Court: Dismissed — no pleaded reliance by Moore on the alleged false representation |
| Breach of contract / collective-bargaining claim (Count VIII) | Howard breached the CBA by denying union representation and a fair hearing | Defendants: Claim depends on interpretation of the CBA and is preempted by federal labor law | Court: Dismissed as preempted by Section 301 LMRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (same‑sex or same‑race harassment can be actionable under Title VII)
- Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (1977) (no presumption that members of a group will not discriminate against their own group)
- Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391 (D.C. Cir.) (Title VII does not permit individual-capacity liability)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment standard: severe or pervasive)
- Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226 (D.C. Cir.) (retaliation protected activity requires complaint to indicate unlawful discrimination)
- Thigpen v. Greenpeace, Inc., 657 A.2d 770 (D.C. 1995) (wrongful discharge narrow exception: refusal to commit unlawful act)
- Warner v. United States, 124 A.3d 79 (D.C. 2015) (second-degree fraud requires a scheme or systematic course of conduct)
- Dresser v. Sunderland Apartments Tenants Ass’n, Inc., 465 A.2d 835 (D.C. 1983) (elements of common-law fraud)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (claims requiring interpretation of a CBA are preempted)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (section 301 LMRA preemption principles)
- Griffin v. Acacia Life Ins. Co., 925 A.2d 564 (D.C. 2007) (negligent supervision/retention require an underlying common-law duty)
- Phelan v. City of Mount Rainier, 805 A.2d 930 (D.C. 2002) (same)