Morris v. Carter Global Lee, Inc.
997 F. Supp. 2d 27
D.D.C.2013Background
- Morris, acting pro se, sues Carter Global Lee, Inc. (CGL) over his February 23, 2009 termination from the District of Columbia Jail.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Amended Complaint alleges civil and human rights violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false accusations, fraud, and wrongful firing.
- Morris was a licensed master plumber; termination followed alleged sabotaging of the jail’s heating system.
- EEOC charge (July 28, 2009) and unemployment benefits proceedings followed the termination; Title VII/time limits are at issue.
- Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part the motion to dismiss, allowing the §1981 claim to proceed while dismissing the rest without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1981 claim survives dismissal. | Morris alleges race-based termination under §1981. | §1981 claim is inadequately pled and/or time-barred. | §1981 claim survives; timely under §1981(b) four-year statute of limitations. |
| Whether §1983/Procedural Due Process claim is time-barred. | Termination without due process violated constitutional rights. | Claim untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. | Time-barred; dismissed. |
| Whether Title VII claim is time-barred. | EEOC dismissal permitted timely suit; facts timely alleged. | Ninety-day filing window for Title VII claims expired. | Time-barred; dismissed. |
| Whether §1982, §1984, and §1985 claims are cognizable. | Seeking broader civil rights remedies beyond §1981. | These provisions do not provide private causes of action or apply here. | Dismissed; none cognizable. |
| Whether common-law claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, false accusations, fraud, wrongful termination) state a claim. | Defendant’s conduct was extreme and wrongful. | These tort/contract-related claims are not cognizable or fail to meet pleading standards. | All such claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: mere conclusory statements insufficient)
- Iqbal, Ashcroft v., 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility required for facial claim on relief)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (U.S. 1982) (constitutional claims timeliness and remedies under §1983)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (accrual rule for §1983 actions)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (borrowing of state statute of limitations for §1983)
- Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1997) (statute of limitations accrual for §1983 claims)
- Ward v. D.C. Dep’t of Youth Rehabilitation Servs., 768 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2011) (evidence admissibility and incorporation by reference at motion to dismiss)
- Graves v. District of Columbia, 777 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2011) (interpretation of §1981(b) limitations period for post-contract-formation claims)