Stewart v. Bowser
Civil Action No. 2017-0495
| D.D.C. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Georgia A. Stewart, an African American female, worked at D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) from 1967 until termination on September 30, 2016.
- Stewart alleged age-based workplace discrimination beginning around 2013, including exclusion from hiring/firing decisions, understaffing, lack of equipment, discriminatory assignments, and preferential treatment of younger employees.
- Stewart filed an EEOC charge in 2013 asserting age discrimination; she was terminated in 2016 and alleges she was told to leave quickly and given a dismissive reason.
- Complaint asserted three claims: Title VII reprisal, ADEA age discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Stewart withdrew the IIED claim.
- Court ordered substitution of the District of Columbia for the individually named official-capacity defendants and granted Stewart leave to amend her Title VII and ADEA claims by December 6, 2017; dismissal of those claims was denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IIED claim stands | Stewart initially pleaded IIED based on termination conduct | Defendants sought dismissal | Stewart conceded and IIED dismissed |
| Proper defendant for employment claims | Stewart named Mayor and supervisor in official capacities | Defendants argued the District of Columbia is the proper defendant and complaint should be dismissed for naming wrong parties | Court ordered substitution: individual defendants dismissed and District of Columbia substituted |
| Sufficiency of Title VII retaliation claim | Stewart alleged prior EEOC activity and termination; sought to proceed | Defendants argued temporal gap undermines causation and facts insufficient to plead retaliation | Court declined to rule on merits, allowed amendment; dismissal of Title VII denied without prejudice |
| Sufficiency of ADEA age-discrimination and hostile work environment claims | Stewart alleged age-based adverse actions and preferential treatment of younger employees | Defendants argued failure to allege age, insufficient facts re: similarly situated younger employees, no direct evidence, and inadequate allegations of severity/pervasiveness | Court allowed amendment to add factual detail; dismissal denied without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible claim for relief)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (historical pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content allowing reasonable inference of liability)
- In re United Mine Workers of Am. Employee Benefit Plans Litig., 854 F. Supp. 914 (D.D.C. 1994) (complaint construed in plaintiff's favor on motion to dismiss)
- Cooper v. Henderson, 174 F. Supp. 3d 193 (D.D.C. 2016) (proper defendant in District employment discrimination actions is the District of Columbia)
- Sampson v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 20 F. Supp. 3d 282 (D.D.C. 2014) (treating complaint as alleging claims against the District after substitution)
- Attias v. Carefirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (invitation to amend renders dismissal without prejudice nonfinal and indicates action will continue)