Sickle v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC
17 F. Supp. 3d 10
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs David Sickle and Matthew Elliot were subcontractors for Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions (Torres AES) at FOB Shield in Iraq; Elliot injured his back on March 15, 2010 and obtained Defense Base Act (DBA) benefits after an administrative claim.
- Plaintiffs allege Scott Torres (Torres AES principal) terminated Elliot after learning of Elliot’s DBA claim and pressured Sickle to retract an accident report; Plaintiffs assert retaliatory discharge and several common-law claims.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting (1) retaliation under 33 U.S.C. § 948a (DBA/LHWCA) and (2) state-law claims for breach of contract, common-law retaliatory discharge, and conspiracy/prima facie tort.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (and alternatively 12(b)(2) as to personal jurisdiction over Scott Torres), arguing that the DBA/LHWCA provides exclusive remedies and Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The Court construed the complaint as asserting a § 948a claim, found Plaintiffs had not exhausted the DBA/LHWCA administrative process, and held the DBA’s exclusivity and the incorporated LHWCA preempt Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff may bring an original § 948a retaliation action in district court without exhausting DOL administrative remedies | Plaintiffs suggested they need not exhaust and argued § 948a remedies are nominal/inadequate | Defendants: § 948a/LHWCA requires exhaustion of the DOL administrative process before district-court adjudication | Court: Plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies; § 948a claim dismissed for failure to exhaust |
| Whether DBA/LHWCA preempts state-law claims (breach of contract, common-law retaliatory discharge, conspiracy/prima facie tort) | Plaintiffs argued some intentional torts lie outside DBA scope and thus state claims can proceed | Defendants: DBA contains a broad exclusivity clause and comprehensive administrative scheme that preempts state-law claims within its scope | Court: DBA/LHWCA expressly, impliedly (field), and by conflict preemption bars Plaintiffs’ state-law claims arising from alleged retaliation |
| Whether Plaintiffs abandoned their § 948a claim in briefing such that only state claims remain | Plaintiffs at times disclaimed a DBA/LHWCA claim in briefing | Defendants urged dismissal based on exclusivity/exhaustion assuming a § 948a claim was asserted | Court: Construed complaint as asserting § 948a (as pleaded) and resolved both possibilities against Plaintiffs — exhaustion and preemption bars relief |
| Whether court should decide personal jurisdiction over Scott Torres or merits of other defenses | Plaintiffs contested jurisdiction arguments and merits | Defendants sought dismissal on jurisdictional and merits bases | Court: Declined to reach personal-jurisdiction and alternative merits arguments because dismissal was warranted on exhaustion and preemption grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 (1938) (articulates administrative-exhaustion principle)
- McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 (1969) (supports exhaustion to allow agency expertise and discretion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Hall v. C & P Telephone Co., 809 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (LHWCA/DBA preemption of state remedies discussion)
- Brink v. XE Holding, LLC, 910 F. Supp. 2d 242 (D.D.C. 2012) (dismissing retaliation claims for failure to exhaust and discussing DBA exclusivity)
- Fisher v. Halliburton, 667 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2012) (DBA coverage and exclusivity as sole remedy)
- Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 461 U.S. 624 (1983) (workers' compensation scheme as quid pro quo limiting tort liability)
- Flying Tiger Lines v. Landy, 370 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1966) (DBA intended to provide sole remedy for covered injuries)