OMENE v. ACCENTURE FEDERAL SERVICES
1:18-cv-02414
D.D.C.Mar 12, 2020Background
- Omene, an African‑American software developer, was hired by Accenture in 2014 and assigned to a USPS project supervised by Johnny Wen; she alleges Wen made derogatory comments about her age, sex, and race.
- In March 2016 Accenture transferred her to a different project (PCORI) with different technologies and no telework; she alleges daily belittling by supervisors and a coworker who made a "not [my] class" comment tied to "Indian culture."
- She went on disability leave in mid‑2016 for stress and related symptoms; Accenture terminated her employment on November 15, 2016 while she was still on leave.
- Omene filed an EEOC charge in September 2017 asserting age, race, national origin, disability, retaliation, and color claims, then sued after receiving a right‑to‑sue notice; this is her Third Amended Complaint after prior dismissals and one court‑granted chance to amend.
- The Third Amended Complaint added limited new facts (national origin = U.K., alleged billing accusation, different PCORI duties, inability to telework, details about leave and harassment) but failed to enumerate or adequately plead many claims.
- The court granted Accenture's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding Omene conceded multiple claims by not opposing arguments, failed to plead causation or timely claims, and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA (Count III): viability | Omene alleges disability leave and harassment during leave | Fails to plead disability, qualified status, or request for reasonable accommodation | ADA claim conceded and dismissed |
| FMLA/DC FMLA interference (Count IV) | Doctor approved disability leave; Accenture burdened her while on leave | No adequate notice or interference; termination occurred after FMLA/DCFMLA entitlement expired | Dismissed for conceded failure and untimeliness as to interference |
| FMLA/DC FMLA retaliation (Count V) | She complained and was retaliated against | No causal link or protected activity shown; timing doesn't support causation | Dismissed as conceded |
| Discrimination from transfer (ADEA/Title VII) | Transfer to PCORI was a demotion: different duties, no telework, stricter deadlines | Transfer occurred March 2016; EEOC charge filed >300 days later; transfer not plausibly an adverse action | Claims time‑barred and not plausibly adverse; dismissed |
| Discrimination from termination (ADEA/Title VII) | Termination was adverse and resulted from age/race/sex/national origin | No plausible causal connection between protected traits and termination; plaintiff failed to focus on termination | Dismissed for failure to plead causation; treated as conceded |
| Hostile work environment / ADEA & Title VII retaliation | Alleged pervasive yelling, belittling, complaints to HR | Claims not enumerated; not severe or pervasive; untimely; no causal proximity for retaliation | Hostile work environment and retaliation dismissed (failure to plead, exhaustion/timeliness, and conceded arguments) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (timeliness for discrete acts and hostile work environment accrual)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (adverse employment action requirement)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (reassignment with significantly different responsibilities as adverse action)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (subjective dissatisfaction is not an adverse action)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal gaps weaken inference of causation for retaliation)
- Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc., 775 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (arguments unaddressed in opposition may be treated as conceded)
- Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (litigant must plainly present arguments or they are forfeited)
- Rudder v. Williams, 666 F.3d 790 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (standard for dismissal with prejudice)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (causation required for retaliation claims)