Sharma v. District of Columbia
791 F. Supp. 2d 207
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Ramesh Sharma, a former Senior Contract Specialist with DC OCP, sues DC government for retaliation under the DCWPA and FCA.
- From 2005 to early 2009, Sharma alleges colleagues pressured him to approve fraudulent contracts; he blew the whistle and faced retaliation.
- In March 2009, OCP’s construction contracting group moved to OPM; Sharma’s co-workers were reassigned, while Sharma received a RIF notice dated May 18, 2009.
- Sharma’s RIF became effective June 19, 2009; he was terminated and placed on administrative leave with pay on June 3, 2009.
- Sharma filed whistleblower and RIF complaints in June 2009; he appealed the RIF to OEA in July 2009, but withdrew in April 2010; OEA later dismissed with prejudice in April 2010.
- Sharma filed the instant complaint on June 18, 2010; defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which the court denied in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DCWPA claim is valid given the RIF-based retaliation | Sharma asserts the RIF was retaliatory under DCWPA. | DCWPA claims must be limited to non-RIF actions or require exhaustion under CMPA. | DCWPA claim based on the RIF survives; not preempted by CMPA. |
| Whether the 2010 amendments to DCWPA are retroactive for statute of limitations and pre-suit notice | Amendments are procedural and retroactive; apply to Sharma's 2009-2010 claims. | Amendments not clearly retroactive; potentially substantive; should not apply retroactively. | Amendments are procedural and retroactive; apply to Sharma. |
| Whether the CMPA preempts the DCWPA claim | DCWPA permits both administrative and judicial remedies, with concurrent jurisdiction. | CMPA preempts DCWPA; must exhaust administrative remedies via OEA. | CMPA does not preempt the DCWPA claim. |
| Whether Sharma adequately pleaded an FCA retaliation claim | Allegations show Sharma engaged in protected activity and suffered retaliation connected to that activity. | FCA claim lacks a prima facie showing and direct evidence of causation. | FCA retaliation claim plausibly alleged; survives Rule 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading LR)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; naked assertions insufficient)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (retroactivity; procedural vs substantive distinctions)
- Stephenson v. American Dental Ass'n, 789 A.2d 1248 (D.C. 2002) (discriminatory timing standard for termination)
- Cesarano v. Reed Smith, LLP, 990 A.2d 455 (D.C. 2010) (termination notice finality and notice timing considerations)
- Williams v. District of Columbia, No. 06-cv-02076, F. Supp. 2d (D.D.C. 2011) (retroactivity of DCWPA amendments to statute of limitations and pre-suit notice)
- Wilburn v. District of Columbia, 957 A.2d 921 (D.C. 2008) (DCWPA exhaustion considerations; CMPA interplay)
- Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (protected activity under FCA; knowledge and causation standard)