Robert Grimes v. District of Columbia Business Decisions Information, Inc., Welton Williams
89 A.3d 107
D.C.2014Background
- In 1990 Grimes injured his back as a DC tax auditor; he pursued disability benefits through lengthy proceedings.
- In 1998 the Employees Compensation Order Review Board awarded Grimes temporary total disability benefits.
- The District later terminated benefits, relying on a BDI report investigating Grimes’s employment and income.
- Grimes alleged BDI’s report falsely stated he earned income from Grimes & Associates CPAs, real estate, and a personal-injury claim on his father’s behalf, and that the District and BDI publicized the report.
- In 2010 Grimes sued the District, BDI, and Williams, asserting CMPA claims, conspiracy, retaliation, IIED, and civil conspiracy; the trial court dismissed.
- The court held CMPA exhaustion, IIED insufficiency, and conspiracy deficiencies, and the complaint was dismissed; on appeal, issues concerned Rule 12(c) vs. 12(b)(6) and the merits of claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 12(c) was premature and proper standard applied | Grimes argues premature, improper standard | District/BDI say standard aligns with 12(b)(6) or harmless error | No reversible error; standard treated as 12(b)(6) with harmless error |
| Whether the pleadings were properly analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) | Pleadings not properly closed for 12(c) analysis | Merits analyzed under 12(b)(6) or equivalent | Court properly relied on 12(b)(6) standard; no reversible error |
| Whether Grimes stated a DCHRA retaliation claim | Grimes engaged in protected activity by seeking disability benefits | Seeking disability benefits is not protected under DCHRA | No DCHRA retaliation claim; filing workers’ comp claim not protected activity |
| Whether Grimes stated an IIED claim against District/BDI | BDI’s false report and publication amount to IIED | Conduct not extreme/outrageous enough to support IIED | IIED claims dismissed for lack of extreme/outrageous conduct; affirmed as to District and BDI |
| Whether Grimes stated a civil conspiracy claim | Conspiracy supported by retaliation/IIED | Underlying torts insufficient to sustain conspiracy | Civil conspiracy claim affirmed as dismissed; underlying claims deficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Beretta, U.S.A., Corp. v. District of Columbia, 872 A.2d 633 (D.C. 2005) (rule similarity between 12(b)(6) and 12(c) standards)
- Iannucci v. Pearlstein, 629 A.2d 555 (D.C. 1993) (pleadings closed requirement for Rule 12(c))
- Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges, 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2004) (prematurity vs. conversion of motions; rule 12(c) vs 12(b)(6))
- Smith v. Public Defender Serv., 686 A.2d 210 (D.C. 1996) (opinions about matters outside pleadings)
- Kerrigan v. Britches of Georgetown, Inc., 705 A.2d 624 (D.C. 1997) (outrageous conduct standard for IIED in employment context)