Poole v. United States Government printing/publishing office/agency
258 F. Supp. 3d 193
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Fifteen (plus one estate) African‑American current/former GPO employees alleged they were paid less than white employees because their jobs in the Digital Print Center were classified at a lower pay grade despite performing higher‑paid work.
- Plaintiffs filed multiple EEO complaints beginning in 2008; they expressly withdrew a race‑based hostile‑work‑environment claim in 2010 and pursued only pay‑discrimination claims through the EEOC, which dismissed and affirmed dismissal of the pay claims.
- After exhausting the pay claim administrative process, Plaintiffs (pro se in district court) filed suit alleging Title VII retaliation and hostile‑work‑environment (alleged as retaliation) claims arising from supervisory comments, removal of printers, understaffing, lowered salary scale for a job title, ignored awards, and equipment maintenance lapses.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies for retaliation/hostile‑work‑environment claims, failed to plead those claims with sufficient specificity, and that three plaintiffs did not sign the complaint.
- The Court treated pleadings facts as true at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage, but found Plaintiffs did not administratively exhaust retaliation or hostile‑work‑environment claims and that the allegations that were closest to exhaustion (printer removal, lowered salary scale) were too conclusory/sparse to state plausible claims.
- The Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust and failure to state a claim; it declined to reach the Rule 11 signature issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion for retaliation and hostile work environment | Some post‑charge acts are reasonably related to the exhausted pay‑discrimination charge so no separate exhaustion required | Plaintiffs never raised retaliation claims in EEOC; hostile‑work‑environment was expressly withdrawn, so no exhaustion | Dismissed for failure to exhaust; withdrawal/EEOC record show no exhausted retaliation or hostile‑work‑environment claim |
| Applicability of Morgan to post‑charge discrete acts | Post‑charge retaliation/hostile acts can be litigated if reasonably related to exhausted charge | Morgan requires exhaustion of discrete post‑charge acts (majority view) or at least limits expansion; here, most claims not reasonably related | Court need not choose between approaches because most claims are not reasonably related; even the closest allegations are inadequately pleaded |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for retaliation/hostile work environment | Allegations (printer removal, lowered salary scale, slurs, understaffing, denied overtime/awards, equipment neglect) suffice to state retaliation/hostile‑work‑environment | Many allegations are conclusory or lack specifics tying actions to protected activity or showing severe/pervasive conduct | Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient for plausible retaliation or hostile‑work‑environment claims; dismissal also for failure to state a claim |
| Rule 11 signature deficiency for three plaintiffs | (No substantive argument in opposition detailed) | Those three plaintiffs did not sign SAC, violating Rule 11(a) | Court declined to decide because case dismissed on exhaustion/pleading grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (distinguishes discrete acts from hostile‑work‑environment claims and explains timeliness rules for continuing violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content allowing plausible inference of liability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discusses exhaustion and the reasonably related test in the D.C. Circuit context)
- Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (standard for treating allegations as true and drawing inferences on a motion to dismiss)