Background

• Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Thompson sued Digicon under the FLSA, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act (DCMWA), and the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL), alleging misclassification as exempt and failure to pay overtime.
• Complaint pleads individual and collective FLSA claims and individual and class DCMWA/DCWPCL claims, all based on the same factual allegations about unpaid overtime and incorrect overtime rates.
• Digicon moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the DCWPCL claims, arguing the DCMWA provides the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the alleged overtime violations.
• The court evaluated the motion under Rule 12(c) standards, considering only the pleadings and related materials and requiring careful review before disposing of claims without discovery.
• The court found persuasive the District of Columbia decision in Driscoll v. George Washington University, concluding that where DCMWA and DCWPCL claims arise from identical facts, the DCMWA is the exclusive remedy and the DCWPCL claims must be dismissed.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Driscoll v. George Washington Univ., 938 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2013) (DCMWA is exclusive remedy where DCMWA and DCWPCL claims rest on identical facts)
• Baumann v. District of Columbia, 744 F. Supp. 2d 216 (D.D.C. 2010) (Rule 12(c) standard parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
• Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court must approach Rule 12(c) motions with great care)
• Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (discussing limits on earlier precedents cited for other purposes)
• Thompson v. Linda & A., Inc., 779 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2011) (distinguishable where DCWPCL and DCMWA claims were based on different facts)
• Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (distinguishable where plaintiffs alleged different factual bases for wage claims)
• Pleitez v. Carney, 594 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2009) (distinguishable factual posture)