Corey McFADDEN, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 12-910 (RBW)
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
June 12, 2013.
Moreover, Prof. Nichter seeks information related to the motivation behind the Watergate break-in. Nichter Ltr. 1, Sep. 6, 2010, ECF No. 1. After reviewing the grand jury materials in camera, the Court does not believe the information contained therein would help resolve any ambiguities in the historical record or bring Prof. Nichter any closer to solving the questions he presents. After weighing the Craig factors, the Court determines that the calculus falls in favor of the government‘s position and will not unseal any grand jury materials.
III. CONCLUSION
Prof. Nichter‘s quest to discover the ultimate truth behind Watergate is laudable. Unfortunately, the law does not allow the Court to release all the requested information. The Court will unseal the PSRs and some personal documents but will allow NARA to make appropriate redactions. Only the names of individuals overheard on the illegal wiretaps will be unsealed. The Court will likewise order that grand jury materials remain under seal. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this date.
sider its ruling if it was presented with evidence that the named individuals had consented to release.
Corey McFadden, Germantown, MD, pro se.
Gerard Joseph Stief, Janice Lynn Cole, Nicholas Stephen Nunzio, Jr., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Corey McFadden, proceeding pro se, brings this action against his employer, the Washington Metropolitan Area
I. BACKGROUND
The complaint contains the following allegations pertinent to the defendants’ motion. WMATA hired the plaintiff as a bus mechanic in October 2008. Compl. ¶ 11. In June 2009, the plaintiff was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD“) and prescribed the drug Adderall “to increase his focus and concentration.” Id. ¶ 14. Pursuant to a WMATA policy forbidding employees in “safety-sensitive positions” from using amphetamines, the defendants prohibited the plaintiff from working as a bus mechanic while taking Adderall, and suspended his employment after he tested positive for use of the drug. See id. ¶¶ 22-77. Subsequently, at a grievance hearing before WMATA‘s Joint Labor Management Committee in March 2011 (“Labor-Management Hearing“), the individual defendants made statements, prior to the plaintiff‘s arrival at the hearing, indicating that the plaintiff was a drug addict who was abusing Adderall. See id. ¶¶ 72-74. WMATA later fired the plaintiff for violating the company‘s substance abuse policy, but then reinstated his employment pursuant to an agreement with the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 689, of which the plaintiff is a member. Id. ¶¶ 75, 77, 18.
The plaintiff instituted this action on June 8, 2012. His complaint contains three counts. Count I asserts a claim under the
The defendants have now moved for partial dismissal of the complaint pursuant to
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A
“A pro se complaint,” such as the plaintiff‘s, “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Atherton v. D.C. Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). “But even a pro se complainant must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct.‘” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79).
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Plaintiff‘s ADA Claims Against WMATA
WMATA moves to dismiss the ADA claims against it on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Defs.’ Mem. at 2. “Under the Eleventh Amendment, ‘an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.‘” Jones v. WMATA, 205 F.3d 428, 432 (D.C.Cir.2000) (citation omitted). “WMATA, a mass transit system for the District of Columbia and surrounding sub
B. The Plaintiff‘s ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims Against the Individual Defendants
The individual defendants move to dismiss the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against them on the ground that those statutes do not authorize individual liability. Defs.’ Mem. 2-4. The plaintiff does not respond to this argument, so it is conceded. See Lewis v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 10-5275, 2011 WL 321711, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Feb. 2, 2011) (per curiam) (“It is well understood in this Circuit that when a plaintiff files an opposition to a dispositive motion and addresses only certain arguments raised by the defendant, a court may treat those arguments that the plaintiff failed to address as conceded.“) (citation omitted)). In any event, even without this concession, the defendants are correct on the merits: “there is no individual liability under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.” Di Lella v. Univ. of Dist. of Columbia David A. Clarke Sch. of Law, 570 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 n. 8 (D.D.C.2008) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court will grant dismissal of the plaintiff‘s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the individual defendants.
C. The Plaintiff‘s Defamation Claim Against the Individual Defendants
The individual defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff‘s common law defamation claim on the grounds that it is time-barred; that they are immune from the claim pursuant to the WMATA Compact; and that it fails on the merits. See Defs.’ Mem. at 4-5; Defs.’ Reply at 3-6. The Court will address each argument in turn.
1. Timeliness
Under District of Columbia law, “[a] claim for defamation must be filed within one year of accrual of the cause of action.” Maupin v. Haylock, 931 A.2d 1039, 1041-42 (D.C. 2007);
“As a general rule, ‘[w]here the fact of an injury can be readily determined, a claim accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations at the time the injury actually occurs.‘” Mullin v. Wash. Free Weekly, Inc., 785 A.2d 296, 298 (D.C.2001) (citation omitted). Consistent with this rule, a defamation claim typically accrues, “and the one-year limitations period beg[ins] to run, at the time the allegedly defamatory statement [is] published.” Maupin, 931 A.2d at 1042. “But when ‘the relationship between the fact of injury and the alleged tortious conduct [is] obscure,‘” the D.C. Court of Appeals has applied the so-called “discovery rule,” which provides that “the statute of limitations will not run until plaintiffs know or reasonably should have known that they suffered injury due to the defendants’ wrongdoing.” Id. at 298-99 (citation omitted). The plaintiff argues that the discovery rule applies to his defamation claim. Pl.‘s Reply at 6.
As best as the Court can determine, whether and to what extent the discovery rule applies to defamation claims is an unsettled question of District of Columbia law. One point is clear, however: the discovery rule does not apply when the alleged defamatory statements are “published by a mass media defendant,” the rationale being that “the fact of the injury is readily ascertainable upon publication because the harm occurs with publication.” Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63, 72 (D.C. 2005) (citing Mullin, 785 A.2d at 299 & n. 5). But outside the mass media context, the D.C. Court of Appeals has expressly declined to decide whether the discovery rule applies to defamation claims. See Maupin, 931 A.2d at 1041 (noting that the question is unsettled and proceeding to resolve the appeal “by assuming without deciding that the discovery rule applies in at least some defamation cases“). The court has nonetheless suggested that “application of the discovery rule might be justified” in some defamation cases, including when “the defamatory statement [is] inherently undiscoverable, because it was published secretly and/or the defendant took steps to prevent the plaintiff from uncovering the statement, or in the case of circulars, newsletters, or even newspapers addressed to a specialized readership.” Mullin, 785 A.2d at 299 n. 5 (citing Tom Olesker‘s Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 61 Ill.2d 129, 334 N.E.2d 160, 164 (1975) (applying the discovery rule to a defamation claim concerning statements within a credit report)).
When faced with an undecided issue of state law, a federal court “must resolve the issue according to ‘the rule that [it] believe[s] [] the state‘s highest court, from all that is known about its methods of reaching decisions and the authorities it tends to rely on, is likely to adopt in the not too distant future.‘” Davis v. Grant Park Nursing Home LP, 639 F.Supp.2d 60, 69 (D.D.C.2009) (quoting 19 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4507 at 200 (2d ed. 1996)). Here, the Court anticipates that the D.C. Court of Appeals would apply the discovery rule based on the facts of this case. The al
Having reached this conclusion, the Court cannot grant dismissal of the plaintiff‘s defamation claim as time-barred. “[B]ecause statute of limitations issues often depend on contested questions of fact, dismissal is appropriate only if the complaint on its face is conclusively time-barred.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C.Cir.1996). And here, the plaintiff‘s defamation claim is not conclusively time-barred as discerned from the face of the complaint. Rather, applying the discovery rule, issues of fact exist concerning when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the individual defendants’ alleged defamatory statements caused his purported injury. Discovery is necessary to yield answers to these questions, and so dismissal under
The defendants contend, without citing any authority, that knowledge of the alleged defamatory statements can be imputed to the plaintiff effective March 2011 because his union representatives heard the statements at the March 2011 Labor-Management Hearing and they were the plaintiff‘s “agents.” Defs.’ Reply at 4. But even assuming this argument correctly states the law, “the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact which, depending upon the existence of any disputed issues of material fact, is more appropriately addressed on summary judgment or at trial.” Jackson v. Culinary Sch. of Wash., 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1242 (D.D.C.1992); see Jackson v. Loews Wash. Cinemas, Inc., 944 A.2d 1088, 1097 (D.C. 2008). And the complaint in this case—the focal point of the Court‘s review on a
Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss the plaintiff‘s defamation claim as untimely.
2. Immunity under the WMATA Compact
The individual defendants next argue that they are immune from the plaintiff‘s defamation claim pursuant to the interstate compact creating WMATA. Defs.’ Mem. at 4. “Section 80 of the Compact waives [WMATA‘s sovereign] immunity for torts ‘committed in the conduct of any proprietary function,’ while retaining immunity for torts committed by its agents ‘in the performance of a governmental function.‘” Beebe v. WMATA, 129 F.3d 1283, 1287 (D.C.Cir.1997) (quoting
In seeking to invoke immunity under the WMATA Compact here, the individual defendants merely cite the foregoing legal principles and proclaim victory. See Defs.’ Mem. at 4-5. They do not explain why their alleged defamatory statements fall within the WMATA Compact‘s grant of immunity, offering no argument on key issues such as whether their challenged conduct implicated non-immune “proprietary” functions, or immune “governmental” functions. See Beebe, 129 F.3d at 1287-89 (discussing the relevant standards). Because “the burden of establishing immunity [is] on the official,” id. at 1289, and because the individual defendants have utterly failed to carry that burden, the Court declines to dismiss the plaintiff‘s defamation claim on immunity grounds.
3. Merits
The individual defendants also assert that the plaintiff‘s defamation claim fails on the merits. See Defs.’ Reply at 3-6. To prevail on a defamation claim under District of Columbia law, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party; (3) that the defendant‘s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and (4) either that the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or that its publication caused the plaintiff special harm.
Oparaugo, 884 A.2d at 76 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Focusing on this second element, the individual defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to show publication to a third party because their alleged defamatory statements were only made to the plaintiff‘s “agents” (i.e., his union representatives), who, the individual defendants maintain, do not qualify as “third parties.” Defs.’ Reply at 3. As noted above, however, the existence of an agency relationship between the plaintiff and his union representatives is a factual question prematurely raised at this stage of the proceedings, and there is no con
The individual defendants next assert that their alleged defamatory statements were “absolutely privileged.” Defs.’ Reply at 4; Defs.’ Surreply at 4. This is so, in their view, because the statements were made pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement to which the plaintiff was a party, and, by entering into the agreement, the plaintiff consented to the statements’ publication. Defs.’ Reply at 4-6.
The D.C. Court of Appeals has indeed declared that “[c]onsent is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation,” and thus “[a] person who consents to the publication of comments about himself has no cause of action for defamation.” Farrington v. Bureau of Nat‘l Affairs, Inc., 596 A.2d 58, 59 (D.C.1991). In Farrington, the plaintiff was a party to a collective bargaining agreement which required his employer to prepare performance evaluations for each of its employees. Id. He brought a defamation claim against his employer based on statements made in one of his performance evaluations, but the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff consented to the publication of the statements by entering into the collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 59-60. In so holding, the court applied the following principles:
In this jurisdiction, the defense of consent has been incorporated into a three part analysis. The publication of a defamatory statement is privileged if: (1) there was either express or implied consent to the publication; (2) the statements were relevant to the purpose for which consent was given; and, (3) the publication of those statements was limited to those with a legitimate interest in their content. Thus, in moving for summary judgment on the basis that the publication of the statements was privileged, the [defendants] had the burden to show that there was no dispute that [the plaintiff] consented to the publication of the evaluation, that the statements contained within the evaluation were pertinent to his work performance, and that the distribution was limited to those with a legitimate interest in the evaluation.
Id. at 59. After analyzing all three elements, the court concluded that the “unidisputed evidence support[ed] the trial court‘s conclusion that [the defendants] were entitled to judgment as a matter of law” because they “met the three conditions necessary to claim the defense of privilege based upon consent.” Id. at 60.
At this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the individual defendants have not met their burden of establishing the defense of consent. Even assuming the plaintiff consented to the publication of statements about him at the Labor-Management Hearing by entering into a collective bargaining agreement, this would only satisfy the first element of the defense. The individual defendants must also show that the statements made at the Labor-Management Hearing “were relevant to the purpose for which consent was given,” and that “the publication of those statements was limited to those with a legitimate interest in their content.” Id. at 59. The complaint alone does not reveal whether these conditions are met in this case. Although the individual defendants may be able to satisfy all three elements of
For all of these reasons, the Court will deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff‘s defamation claim.
D. The Plaintiff‘s Recovery of Punitive Damages from WMATA
WMATA moves to dismiss the plaintiff‘s claim for punitive damages on the ground that it is immune from punitive damages. Defs.’ Mem. at 5-6. The plaintiff expressly concedes this point, stating that he “is well aware that WMATA is not subject to punitive damages.” Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 4. WMATA‘s motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim therefore will be granted as conceded.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in part is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion is granted insofar as the plaintiff‘s ADA claims against WMATA are dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiff‘s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the individual defendants are dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff‘s request for punitive damages from WMATA is dismissed with prejudice, but the motion is denied in all other respects.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2013.4
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 11-754(GK).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
June 12, 2013.
REGGIE B. WALTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE