Newman v. District of Columbia Courts, 125 F. Supp. 3d 95

Background

Newman, in his mid-60s, worked for the D.C. Courts for ~25 years; in June 2011 he was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) after an alleged ageist remark by his supervisor and was later presented with a "Settlement Agreement and Release" (the Agreement) in October 2011.
The Agreement reassigned Newman to the U.S. Marshals Service (salary and benefits continued) and required that he separate from the D.C. Courts within 30 days of any return; it included an ADEA waiver but provided only 5 days to consider and 2 days to revoke.
Newman filed an EEOC charge on August 10, 2012 alleging the PIP, the coerced Agreement, and that the Agreement violated OWBPA requirements. The EEOC found the Agreement noncompliant with OWBPA and held some discrimination allegations untimely.
Newman returned from assignment in April 2013; the D.C. Courts informed him he had agreed to separate and pursued termination for cause when he did not comply. Newman resigned/retired effective July 31, 2013.
Newman sued under the ADEA and OWBPA in June 2014. Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; Newman cross-moved for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the Agreement violated OWBPA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the D.C. Courts is a proper defendant (sui juris)	Newman sued the D.C. Courts as a defendant	D.C. Courts is a subdivision of the District and non sui juris; no statutory authorization to sue it separately	Court: Dismiss claims against D.C. Courts for lack of capacity (granted)
Timeliness/exhaustion of claim based on the June 2011 PIP	Newman says PIP was discriminatory; implied tolling because of Agreement and alleged coercion	PIP claim was filed >300 days after event and thus not exhausted	Court: PIP-based claim dismissed for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies (granted)
Adequacy of pleaded ADEA claim based on Agreement/reassignment/termination	Newman contends the Agreement coerced reassignment and led to his termination; supervisor's ageist remark supports discrimination inference	Defendants argue reassignment was not adverse and remark was a stray comment; later argue termination occurred after EEOC period and thus unexhausted	Court: Reassignment alone not an adverse action; but claim that Agreement led to eventual termination is plausibly pled and not dismissed on exhaustion or merits at this stage (claim survives)
Whether OWBPA violation entitles Newman to declaratory/injunctive relief or independent damages	Newman seeks a declaratory finding that the Agreement violates OWBPA (partial summary judgment)	Defendants concede Agreement is noncompliant but say they won't invoke it; no ongoing controversy or enforcement; OWBPA violations alone do not create damages remedy	Court: Denies partial summary judgment and dismisses OWBPA declaratory claim for lack of Article III jurisdiction; no independent damages remedy for OWBPA violation established (denied/dismissed)

Key Cases Cited

Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) (OWBPA requires waivers of ADEA rights be knowing and voluntary)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling doctrine where plaintiff tricked or induced to miss deadline)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (requirements for an Article III case or controversy in declaratory judgment actions)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (examples of adverse employment actions)
Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (mere dissatisfaction with reassignment is not an adverse action)
Wilson v. Cox, 753 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (evidence of age-related bias can permit discrimination claim to proceed)
Washington v. WMATA, 160 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (ADEA plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC)