Peart v. Latham and Watkins LLP
985 F. Supp. 2d 72
D.D.C.2013Background
- Peart, African American, hired as legal secretary by Latham & Watkins LLP in April 2007.
- She became pregnant, notified supervisor, and went on doctor-mandated bed rest in November 2007.
- Termination alleged January 24, 2008, with supervisor stating she was “no longer needed” and pregnancy “not his problem.”
- EEOC charge filed in early 2008; work-sharing transferred the case to OHR in July 2008.
- OHR found “no probable cause” in March 2011, then reversed and ordered a hearing in September 2011; the reversal was deemed void due to clerical errors, leading to a March 29, 2012 decision upholding “no probable cause.”
- EEOC issued a Right to Sue letter on April 18, 2013; Peart filed suit four days later; Amended Complaint asserts five counts: Title VII (pregnancy discrimination/hostile environment), §1981, breach of implied contract and wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and DCHRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment viability under Title VII | Peart seeks Title VII relief for pregnancy/gender-related harassment | Harassment allegations are too few and not sufficiently pervasive or severe | Count I survives for discrimination, but hostile environment claim is dismissed |
| § 1981 applicability to pregnancy/gender discrimination | § 1981 covers civil rights; intended to protect race, not sex | § 1981 cannot be used for pregnancy/gender discrimination | Count II time-barred and precluded; §1981 claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Statutes of limitations for Counts III–IV (implied contract, wrongful discharge, IIED) | Equitable tolling/estoppel should toll limitations | Claims time-barred under D.C. statutes; no tolling applicable | Counts III and IV time-barred and dismissed with prejudice |
| DCHRA Count V jurisdiction and election of remedies | EEOC cross-filing with OHR may keep DCHRA claim viable; no final OHR determination | Election of remedies bars court action once OHR involved; potential finality issue | Count V remains pending; jurisdiction hinges on whether EEOC filing constitutes filing with OHR; unresolved at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (hostile environment requires severe or pervasive conduct)
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (pervasive harassment altering conditions of employment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (employer liability for hostile environment based on severe or pervasive conduct)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (proof of harassment must show severe or pervasive conduct)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (isolated incidents may not satisfy hostile environment threshold)
- Singh v. U.S. House of Representatives, 300 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004) (courts reject harassment claims that are disrespectful but not severely abusive)
- Griffin v. Acacia Life Insurance Co., 925 A.2d 564 (D.C. 2007) (EEOC cross-filing with OHR and election of remedies analyzed)
- Estenos v. PAHO/WHO Federal Credit Union, 952 A.2d 878 (D.C. 2008) (administrative tolling/filing with EEOC cross-filed with OHR discussed)