Watson v. Dc Water and Sewer Authority
249 F. Supp. 3d 462
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian Watson, pro se, alleges D.C. Water & Sewer Authority retaliated by refusing to hire him for a water sewer worker position after his participation in a 2013 class-action alleging race discrimination.
- Watson names George Hawkins (ultimate hiring authority) and Raymond Haynesworth, Alan Martin, and Frank Baylor (management team) as defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for improper service and under 12(b)(6) arguing individual defendants are not proper Title VII defendants.
- Plaintiff concedes improper service but requests leave to correct service because he is pro se and the error was harmless.
- Plaintiff also disavows suing Baylor, Haynesworth, and Martin in their individual capacities, effectively conceding dismissal of those three.
- Court grants leave to cure service (30 days to serve remaining defendants), dismisses Baylor, Haynesworth, and Martin, and reserves ruling on Hawkins until proper service is effected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint should be dismissed for improper service under Rule 12(b)(5) | Watson admits service was improper but asks for leniency and an opportunity to cure because he is pro se | Defendants seek dismissal without prejudice for lack of valid service | Court denied dismissal without prejudice; granted 30 days to effect and prove proper service (by May 19, 2017) |
| Whether individual defendants can be sued under Title VII (12(b)(6)) | Watson clarified he is not suing Baylor, Haynesworth, and Martin individually; Hawkins is sued in his agency capacity only | Defendants argued individual managers are not proper Title VII defendants and should be dismissed | Court dismissed Baylor, Haynesworth, and Martin; did not decide on Hawkins because service had not been effected on him |
| Whether court should reach merits on Hawkins' individual liability under Rule 12(b)(6) | Watson states Hawkins is sued as agent of the employer, not personally | Defendants moved to dismiss individual claims against Hawkins | Court declined to reach merits until personal jurisdiction via proper service is established |
| Whether pro se status excuses procedural defects | Watson contends pro se status warrants leniency and correction opportunity | Defendants maintain procedural rules must be followed and service is required | Court afforded limited leniency: allowed cure but emphasized limits of accommodation for pro se litigants |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (service of process required for court to exercise power over a defendant)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Hilska v. Jones, 217 F.R.D. 16 (D.D.C. 2003) (if service is improper, defendant may move to dismiss without prejudice)
- Light v. Wolf, 816 F.2d 746 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (party on whose behalf service is made bears burden to establish validity)
- Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (court need not accept legal conclusions in pleadings)
- Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (district courts must consider pro se filings in light of all responsive filings)
- Moore v. Agency for Int'l Dev., 994 F.2d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (pro se litigants receive more latitude to correct service defects)
- Cruz-Packer v. D.C., 539 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D.D.C. 2008) (limits on accommodations for pro se litigants)