Stewart v. Bowser
296 F. Supp. 3d 88
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Georgia A. Stewart, an African‑American woman, worked at the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) from 1967 until her termination on September 30, 2016.
- In 2013 Stewart filed an EEOC charge alleging age discrimination; she alleges ongoing adverse actions (exclusion from hiring/firing decisions, understaffing, denial of tools, preferential treatment of younger employees) culminating in abrupt termination.
- Complaint asserted three claims: Title VII retaliation (reprisal), ADEA age discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing misnamed defendants, insufficiency of pleadings on causation and age, and failure to plead hostile work environment facts.
- Stewart conceded the IIED claim and withdrew it; the court dismissed that claim. The court also ordered substitution of the District of Columbia as the proper defendant in place of named officials.
- The court declined to dismiss the Title VII and ADEA claims with prejudice, granted Stewart leave to amend, and set deadlines for amendment and response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IIED claim should proceed | Stewart initially asserted IIED based on termination and treatment | Defendants moved to dismiss IIED | Court: Stewart conceded and IIED dismissed |
| Whether wrong party naming requires dismissal | Stewart named Mayor and supervisor in official capacity; did not name D.C. | Defendants argued proper defendant is District of Columbia and misnaming warrants dismissal | Court: Ordered substitution of District of Columbia; individual defendants dismissed and replaced |
| Whether Title VII retaliation claim plead facts sufficient for causation | Stewart alleges prior EEOC charge (2013) and adverse employment actions ending in 2016 | Defendants argue temporal gap defeats causation inference and complaint lacks other causation facts | Court: Declined to resolve on motion; allowed amendment (denied dismissal without prejudice) |
| Whether ADEA claim sufficiently pleaded (age, comparators, hostile work environment) | Stewart alleges age discrimination and favoritism toward younger employees | Defendants argue complaint fails to allege plaintiff's age, proper comparators, direct evidence, or severe/pervasive conduct | Court: Declined to resolve on motion; allowed amendment to add facts (denied dismissal without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (required factual enhancement beyond conclusory allegations)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (pleading notice standard discussed historically)
- Sampson v. D.C. Dep't of Corrections, 20 F. Supp. 3d 282 (D.D.C. 2014) (substitution of proper governmental defendant)
- Attias v. Carefirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (leave to amend can render dismissal nonfinal)
- Cooper v. Henderson, 174 F. Supp. 3d 193 (D.D.C. 2016) (proper defendant in D.C. employment discrimination is the District of Columbia)