934 F. Supp. 2d 191
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plummer, an African American male proceeding pro se, sued Safeway, Inc. alleging Title VII and DCHRA discrimination and retaliation, plus DC common-law claims.
- He was hired as a Second Assistant Manager at Safeway in September 2008.
- Plummer alleges Safeway discriminated by failing to promote him beyond assistant manager and later retaliated after EEOC activity.
- In 2008–2009 he applied for the Retail Leadership Development program and for field merchandising/promotions but was repeatedly rejected; Safeway cited lack of basic qualifications.
- Plummer sent EEOC communications (including a 2009 letter and 2011 investigation response) alleging discriminatory promotion practices; he pursued EEOC mediation in 2010.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Safeway’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, allowing amendment of Title VII and DCHRA claims but dismissing most other claims and providing leave to amend the discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plummer plausibly pleaded Title VII/DCHRA discrimination and retaliation | Plummer alleges race-based failure to promote and retaliation for EEOC activity. | Claims are conclusory; no specific facts tying promotions to race or protected activity. | Claims may proceed; leave to amend granted for Title VII/DCHRA counts. |
| Whether Counts I–VI and VIII–XI (and DCCPPA claim VII) state cognizable claims | Allegations show damages from discriminatory practices; EEOC materials support plausibility. | Counts rely on bare conclusions with no underlying tort or concrete facts; fail to plead duties or specifics. | Dismissed; most counts barred for lack of factual pleading; only Title VII/DCHRA may proceed after amendment. |
| Whether fraud, conspiracy, and related claims fail for lack of underlying torts or bilateral conspiracy | Defendants conspired to defraud him and engaged in fraud and negligent acts. | No underlying tort pleaded; conspiracy requires multiple parties; single-defendant conspiracy inadequately alleged. | Dismissed due to lack of underlying tort and intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. |
| Whether DCWCA precludes negligence and emotional distress claims | Damages resulted from discriminatory employment practices. | WCA exclusive remedy for workplace injuries. | Negligence and emotional distress claims barred by WCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading requires plausible facts, not mere conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim, not mere possibility)
- Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (naked allegations insufficient; require factual heft)
- Edmond v. Am. Educ. Servs., 2010 WL 4269129 (D.D.C. 2010) (unfair and deceptive practices require consumer-merchant relationship)