Slate v. Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45212
D.D.C.2014Background
- Gregory Slate, a former felony-1 investigator at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS), worked there from August 2008 until suspension(s) and termination following a May 30, 2009 car accident and related criminal charges.
- Slate alleged pervasive sexist, racist, and religiously offensive comments by his supervisor Rachel Ann Primo, occasional inappropriate physical contact, and that he complained internally and later filed EEO charges (April 15, 2010; Nov. 17, 2010).
- After the accident, PDS placed Slate on administrative leave (with pay), later on leave without pay when an Arlington warrant issued, Slate pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in January 2010, and PDS terminated him March 3, 2010.
- Slate sued PDS and Primo pro se, asserting Title VII and DCHRA claims for race and sex discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and common-law claims (breach of contract, breach of good faith, tortious interference).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court considered documents central to the complaint (EEO charges, suspension letter, arrest warrant, plea) and concluded many alleged on‑the‑job acts predated the 300‑day Title VII filing period.
- The court granted defendants’ motions in full, dismissing all federal and related state/common-law claims as untimely or insufficiently pleaded and finding nondiscriminatory reasons (criminal conduct/conviction) for suspension and termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of discrimination claims | Slate contends discrimination/harassment during employment supports Title VII/DCHRA claims | PDS/Primo: many alleged acts occurred before the 300‑day Title VII deadline and are time‑barred | Court: Most on‑the‑job incidents predate June 19, 2009; Title VII claims untimely except suspension/termination; some DCHRA claims also fail on merits |
| Adverse employment action / hostile work environment | Slate alleges harassment, unwanted touching, offensive language, and differential assignments | Defendants: verbal abuse and isolated incidents are not adverse employment actions or sufficiently severe/pervasive | Court: Only suspension and termination were adverse actions; the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or tied to a protected class to support hostile‑work‑environment claims |
| Retaliation causation | Slate says suspension/termination and post‑termination denials were retaliation for internal complaints and EEO charges | Defendants: timing and documentary record show suspensions/termination linked to the accident, arrest warrant, and conviction; many alleged retaliatory acts not in EEO charge (exhaustion issue) | Court: No but‑for causation for retaliation; EEO charges filed after suspension/termination; PDS offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and Slate failed to rebut them |
| Common‑law (contract/tort) claims | Slate asserts breach of an oral employment contract, breach of good faith, and Primo’s tortious interference | Defendants: common‑law claims accrued at termination and are governed by 3‑year statute of limitations | Court: Claims accrued by March 3, 2010 and suit filed May 30, 2013 — common‑law claims time‑barred and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely conceivable)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain more than conclusory allegations)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation adverse action standard: materially adverse acts that might deter a reasonable worker)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile work environment standard and employer vicarious liability framework)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (severity/pervasiveness standard for harassment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (when employer offers legitimate reason, court considers if plaintiff can show pretext)
- Davis v. Coastal Int’l Sec., Inc., 275 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (hostile work environment elements and analysis)