Workman v. Bissessar
275 F. Supp. 3d 263
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joan Workman, a part-time Smithsonian Renwick Gallery employee, sued her supervisor Kenrick Bissessar in D.C. Superior Court alleging assault/battery and harassment after two workplace confrontations; she sought only a "stay-away" order, not money damages.
- Smithsonian supervisors investigated: after the August 2016 incident they sustained an absence action against Workman and found no evidence of physical contact or harassment by Bissessar; after a March 2017 incident Workman received a reprimand for insubordination.
- Bissessar removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and moved to dismiss (arguing, inter alia, improper service); Workman sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to bar contact at work.
- At the TRO hearing Workman declined to testify under oath and repeatedly stated she had no documentary evidence; the Smithsonian agreed not to schedule Workman and Bissessar on the same shifts pending resolution.
- The Court denied the TRO and later denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because Workman failed to produce evidence showing likelihood of success or imminent irreparable harm.
- The Court deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss to allow the 90-day service period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (running from removal) to expire, and ordered Workman to effect service or show good cause by September 5, 2017, or face dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a preliminary injunction (stay-away order) should issue | Workman says Bissessar was "up on" her back and close enough to constitute assault/harassment and she fears for her safety | No explicit factual defense at injunction stage; administrative investigation found no physical contact or harassment | Denied — Workman failed to present evidence showing likelihood of success or irreparable harm |
| Whether evidence/testimony was sufficient to meet injunction standards | Workman declined to testify under oath and submitted no evidentiary filings despite court invitations | Bissessar relied on investigative declarations finding no physical contact | Denied — absence of credible evidence fatal to first two Winter factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm) |
| Whether the case should be dismissed for defective or untimely service | Workman had not completed service before removal; she sought to proceed without monetary relief but had not shown service | Bissessar moved to dismiss for insufficient service and other defenses; argued Rule 4(m) deadline applies post-removal | Deferred — court allowed time to effect service (90 days from removal) and ordered proof of service or cause by deadline or dismissal would follow |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standard that preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and movant bears burden)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (likelihood of success is the most important injunction factor)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (movant must show irreparable harm is imminent)
- Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 4(m) service period runs from date of removal)