Ndzerre v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Civil Action No. 2017-0090

Plaintiff Habakuk Ndzerre, a WMATA automatic train control mechanic since 2000 and native of Cameroon, sued pro se alleging workplace discrimination, hostile work environment, denial of FMLA leave, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and constitutional violations.
He alleges two denials of FMLA leave: December 2015 (self-care after outpatient surgery for gastrointestinal conditions) and July 2016 (post-surgery recovery), claiming WMATA improperly denied or failed to respond to his requests and notice obligations.
He alleges WMATA perceived and treated him as a foreigner/second-class citizen based on race, color, and national origin, refused reasonable accommodations, threatened termination, and created a hostile work environment causing emotional harm.
He asserted claims under the federal FMLA, the D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act (DCFMLA), the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA), common-law intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
WMATA moved to dismiss. The court evaluated sovereign/Eleventh Amendment and statutory-applicability defenses and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA (self-care) claim	Ndzerre says WMATA denied his self-care FMLA leave and notice obligations	WMATA claims Eleventh Amendment immunity as an interstate compact agency for FMLA self-care claims	Dismissed — Eleventh Amendment bars FMLA self-care damages claims against WMATA
DCFMLA applicability	Ndzerre alleges entitlement to D.C. leave protections	WMATA argues DCFMLA cannot be imposed because WMATA is a tri-jurisdictional interstate compact agency without consent of other signatories	Dismissed — DCFMLA does not apply to WMATA
DCHRA claims	Ndzerre alleges discrimination/hostile work environment under DCHRA	WMATA argues DCHRA does not apply to WMATA for same compact/consent reasons	Dismissed — DCHRA does not apply to WMATA
Intentional infliction of emotional distress / tort claims	Ndzerre alleges severe emotional harm from WMATA conduct	WMATA argues sovereign immunity for discretionary personnel decisions (hiring/training/supervision)	Dismissed — WMATA immune for torts arising from its discretionary supervisory decisions
Section 1983 claims	Ndzerre alleges First, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment violations by WMATA	WMATA argues it is an arm of the state and not a "person" under § 1983	Dismissed — WMATA is not a § 1983 "person"; claims fail

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual plausibility required)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausible claims)
Jones v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 205 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (WMATA enjoys state-conferred immunity for governmental functions)
Nevada Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) (Congress validly abrogated state immunity for FMLA family-care provision)
Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012) (Congress did not validly abrogate state immunity for FMLA self-care provision)
Burkhart v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (decisions re hiring/training/supervision are discretionary and immune)
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and arms of the state are not "persons" under § 1983)
McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2007) (FMLA self-care claims barred by Eleventh Amendment)
Toeller v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 461 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2006) (FMLA self-care provision does not effect valid abrogation of sovereign immunity)
Touvell v. Ohio Dep't of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 422 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2005) (Eleventh Amendment bars self-care FMLA claims)