UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TANGA PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-562 (CKK) DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH REHABILITATION SERIVCES, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (February 21, 2019)
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s [12] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint for age discrimination pursuant to the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. [Count I]; gender
discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e et seq. [Count II]; and sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the District
of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977 (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq.
Plaintiff Tanga Payne’s action is predicated on her being twice denied — allegedly because
of her gender, age and sexual orientation — a position as a Supervisor Youth Development
Representative (“SYDR”) at the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. See Am.
Compl. at 4-6. According to the Plaintiff, these positions were filled by “male heterosexual
candidates at least 10 years younger than [Plaintiff] despite [Plaintiff’s] vastly superior
experience and qualifications.” Am. Compl. at 3.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant Department of Youth
Rehabilitation Services (“Defendant” or “DYRS”) asserts that it is non sui juris, a claim
that Plaintiff does not contest, and this necessitates a dismissal without prejudice of
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint so that the District of Columbia may be substituted as the
1 defendant. For purposes of judicial efficiency, this Court shall hold in abeyance
Defendant’s non sui juris claims until March 8, 2019, while Plaintiff shall be permitted to
amend her Amended Complaint to substitute the Defendant. Furthermore, the Court will
consider the merits of Defendant’s other claims in support of dismissal, namely, whether
Plaintiff has exhausted her ADEA claim, whether Plaintiff’s DCHRA sexual orientation
discrimination claim was timely, and whether Plaintiff has alleged a causal nexus between
gender and her non-selection regarding her Title VII gender discrimination claim. Upon
consideration of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes
of this motion, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s [12]
Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s sexual orientation discrimination claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims for gender and age discrimination remain
standing. Defendant’s non sui juris claims are held in abeyance until March 8, 2019, while
Plaintiff shall be permitted to amend her Amended Complaint in order to substitute the
District of Columbia as the Defendant. If Plaintiff does not substitute the District of
Columbia as a Defendant, the Court will dismiss her Amended Complaint.
1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents:
• Am. Compl, ECF No. 7; • Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl., ECF No. 12, and Def.’s Memo in support thereof, ECF No. 12-1; • Pl.’s Memo. of Points and Auth. in Opp’n to Def,’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 14; • Def.’s Reply in support of Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.
The Court has received and reviewed the additional evidence of administrative proceedings submitted by Plaintiff, ECF Nos. 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3, but these do not have bearing on the pending motion. As indicated herein, the Court takes judicial notice of the Charge of Discrimination, ECF No. 12-1 and the Dismissal and Notice of Rights, ECF No. 15-1.
2 I. LEGAL STANDARD
Defendant moves to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss is
designed to “test[ ] the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” Browning v. Clinton, 292 F. 3d
235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). Rather, a complaint
must allege facts that, if accepted as true, sufficiently “state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider “the facts alleged in the
complaint, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the complaint,”
or “documents upon which the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily relies even if the document
is produced not by the plaintiff in the complaint but by the defendant in a motion to
dismiss.” Ward v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Youth Rehab. Servs., 768 F. Supp. 2d 117,
119 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court may also
consider documents in the public record of which the court may take judicial notice. Abhe
& Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2007). For example, a court may
consider an EECO complaint and Notice of Charge without converting a motion to dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment because such records are “public document[s] of
which a court may take judicial notice.” Ahuja v. Detica Inc., 742 F. Supp. 2d 96, 101-02
(D.D.C. 2010) (citing Wiley v. NEBF Invs., No. 09-CV-223, 2010 WL 114953, at *1 n. 1
3 (D.D.C. January 12, 2010)).
Accordingly, for purposes of the pending motion, the Court takes judicial notice of
the Charge of Discrimination filed by the Plaintiff with the Maryland Commission on Civil
Rights, ECF No. 12-2, and the Dismissal and Notice of Rights by the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, (Baltimore Field Office), ECF No. 15-1. See
Grant v. Dep’t of Treasury, 194 F. Supp. 3d 25, 28 n.2 (D.D.C. 2016) (A “Final Agency
Decision . . . [is] [an] official, public document[] subject to judicial notice”). Judicial notice
is taken solely for the purposes of ascertaining when the Charge of Discrimination was
filed with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (May 4, 2015), the claims addressed
therein, and the date that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Baltimore Field Office, issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights (December 2, 2017).
II. DISCUSSION
A. DYRS is Non Sui Juris and Cannot be Sued
District of Columbia government agencies may not sue or be sued unless
specifically permitted by statute. Ray v. District of Columbia, 535 A.2d 868, 870 n.2 (D.C.
1987); see also Wilson-Greene v. Dept of Youth Rehab. Services, Civ. Action No. 06cv2262
(RJL), 2007 WL 2007557, *2 (D.D.C. July 9, 2007) (dismissing Title VII claims against
DYRS because it is non sui juris); see also ReedJospeph-Minkins v. D.C. Dept. of Youth
Rehab. Services, Civil Action No. ELH-17-45, 2018 WL 3049509 (D. Md. June 20, 2018)
(where defendant argued that DYRS may not be sued and asserted that the District of
Columbia was the proper party, the court sua sponte ordered the substitution of the District
of Columbia for DYRS).
4 Because DYRS is not subject to suit and the District of Columbia will not be
prejudiced by a substitution nor will the substitution affect the substance of Plaintiff’s
claims, the Court concludes that substitution is appropriate in this case. Accordingly,
Defendant’s non sui juris claims are held in abeyance for ten business days while Plaintiff
shall be permitted to amend her Amended Complaint in order to substitute the District of
Columbia as the Defendant.
B. Exhaustion of ADEA Claim
The ADEA requires employees to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a
charge of discrimination with the EEOC or a local equivalent. Washington v Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Auth., 160 F.3d 750, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see 29 U.S.C. § 626
(d)(1)(B) (discussing the timing for filing a charge). A plaintiff who files a timely charge
may proceed with a subsequent civil suit in federal court that is “limited in scope to claims
that are like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and growing out of such
allegations.” Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907 (DC. Cir. 1995), cert denied, 519 U.S.
811 (1996); see Thompson v. District of Columbia, 272 F. Supp. 3d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2017)
(requiring “some specificity in a charge” because a “liberal interpretation of an
administrative charge” would permit a litigant to avoid the requirements of an
administrative proceeding). If discriminatory acts alleged by Plaintiff in the complaint
were “not articulated in the administrative charge, are not reasonably related to the
allegations in the charge, and do not fall within the scope of any administrative
investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow, [plaintiff] may not proceed with
these additional claims without first exhausting the administrative process.” Shipman v.
5 Amtrak, 241 F. Supp. 3d 114, 123 (D.D.C. 2017) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), aff’d, 2017 WL
4217244 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2017).
In the instant case, Plaintiff checked the box for “sex” as the basis for her
discrimination claim in her Charge of Discrimination, ECF No. 12-2. “While the boxes
aid a claimant in identifying the nature of her charge, a claimant is not necessarily limited
to the boxes she selected if she provides a basis for her claims in her written explanation.”
Robinson Reeder v. Am. Council on Educ., 532 F. Supp. 2d 6, 13 (D.D.C. 2008), aff’d, 417
Fed. App’x 4 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In this case, even though the box for “age” was not checked,
this Court may examine the Plaintiff’s narrative explanation “to determine whether [it]
fairly embrace[s] [another] claim.” Ellis v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 631 F. Supp. 3d 71,
76 (D.D.C. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A review of Plaintiff’s
accompanying narrative in her Charge of Discrimination reveals that she emphasizes age
as a factor involved in the promotion decision insofar as Plaintiff specifies that she is “over
the age of 40,” and a woman “age 40” was offered the position while a man “age 30” was
awarded the position. Charge of Discrimination, ECF No. 12-2; contra McIver v. Mattis,
318 F. Supp. 3d 245, 250 (D.D.C. 2018) (denying exhaustion of a disability discrimination
claim where that box was left unchecked, and the details section of the Charge failed to
provide any information that could be read to “express or even hint” at plaintiff’s disability
claim) (quoting Park, 71 F. 3d at 907).
Plaintiff’s assertions relating to her age and gender are reasonably related and arise
in the context of the same factual allegations underlying her claim that DYRS failed to
6 select her for the positions for which she applied. 2 This Court concludes accordingly that
a reasonable reading of Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination permits the inference that
Plaintiff contemplated the existence of and/or intended to assert age discrimination in
addition to gender discrimination, and the ensuing administrative investigation could
reasonably have been expected to address both age and gender discrimination in connection
with Plaintiff’s allegations of discriminatory non-promotion. The Court finds therefore
that Plaintiff’s ADEA claim survives Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
C. Plaintiff’s DCHRA Claim is Barred by the Statute of Limitations Unless the Statute is Tolled Pursuant to D.C. Code § 2-1403.16, the DCHRA has a one-year limitations period,
but an administrative charge timely filed with the District of Columbia Office of Human
Rights (“OHR”) tolls this limitations period. See D.C. Code § 1-1403.16 (a) (“A private
cause of action [under the statute] shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction within
one year of the unlawful discriminatory act” but this may be tolled by “[t]he timely filing
of a complaint with the Office, or under the administrative procedures established by the
Mayor pursuant to § 2-1403.03.”) 3 Charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC are
automatically cross-filed with the OHR with the effect that the statute of limitations is
tolled for DCHRA claims. Hatter v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Auth., 105 F.
Supp. 3d 7, 10 (D.D.C. 2015); Hammel v. Marsh USA, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 3d 234, 240
(D.D.C. 2015) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (string citing cases from the District Court for the
2 Plaintiff further alleges that she is “openly gay,” while the woman offered the position was a “non-heterosexual female” and the man awarded the position was a “heterosexual male.” See Charge of Discrimination, ECF No. 12-2. 3 The “Office” refers to the DCOHR. D.C. Code § 2-1401.02 (19).
7 District of Columbia Circuit and explaining that “D.C. Circuit district court cases on this
issue follow Estenos [v. PAHO/WHO Fed. Credit Union, 952 A. 2d 878 (D.C. 2008)] and
find the statute of limitations to be tolled during the pendency of an administrative
complaint,“ and this tolling period ends when the plaintiff receives a notice from the EEOC
of his right to sue).
Because Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 12, 2018, Compl., ECF No. 1, the
allegedly unlawful acts must have occurred by March 12, 2017, to be considered timely.
But, Plaintiff asserts that she was denied the position of Supervisory Youth Development
Representative first on July 24, 2014, and then again on November 17, 2014. Plaintiff
asserts however that her filing of a Charge of Discrimination with the Maryland
Commission on Civil Rights on May 4, 2015, which was cross-filed with the EEOC under
a work-sharing agreement between the Maryland Commission and the EEOC, should toll
the DCHRA’s statute of limitations. As explained in more detail below, Defendant asserts
that the statute of limitations is not tolled; however, even if “the complaint she filed in
Maryland tolled the limitations period,” Plaintiff’s “DCHRA claims arising from her first
application for a supervisory position in June 2014 are [still] untimely” when you consider
the timing of the alleged first discriminatory act, the date Plaintiff filed her charge of
discrimination, and the filing date of her civil complaint in this Court. See Def.’s Reply,
ECF No. 15, at 13 (calculating the timeline between the dates). The Court agrees with
those calculations, which make Plaintiff’s DCHRA claim arising from her first non-
selection for a supervisory position untimely and subject to dismissal with prejudice,
regardless of whether the statute of limitations is tolled.
8 Prior to resolving the parties’ underlying dispute about tolling, the Court shall
address Plaintiff’s digression that she filed her original complaint with the Baltimore,
Maryland EEOC office “upon being directed to file it there by OHR because the underlying
conduct occurred in Prince George’s County, Maryland.” Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 14, at 7.
Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s statement, noting that because the “DCHRA allows any
person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice of the District
government to file an administrative complaint with the DCOHR,” D.C. Code § 2-1403.03
(b), there is accordingly “no policy of referring District government employees to another
state to file an administrative complaint.” Def.’s Reply at 13, n.7. Without any further
explanation or argument on this point, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is raising the “lulling
doctrine,” which is a “limited exception” to the “generally strict application of statutes of
limitations.” East v Graphic Arts Indus. Joint Pension Trust, 718 A.2d 153, 156 (D.C.
1998). Furthermore, even if Plaintiff is relying on “lulling” to toll the statute of limitations,
that standard is unmet because it requires that a defendant “affirmatively induce[]” a
plaintiff to delay bringing an action, and “concrete evidence” must be presented to
demonstrate this. Coates v. Edgewood Management Corporation, 258 F. Supp. 3d 107,
114 (D.D.C. 2017). Plaintiff has neither asserted affirmative inducement nor presented any
concrete evidence of the same and thus, no lulling argument is warranted.
Turning next to the crux of the Defendant’s argument against tolling, the Defendant
explains that:
DCOHR and the Maryland Commission are both fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs). FEPAs enter into work-sharing agreements not with the EEOC as such, but with its local field offices within each state. Under these work-sharing agreements, charges filed with the EEOC’s Washington field office are considered cross-filed with DCOHR, and charges filed with the EEOC’s Baltimore field office are considered cross-filed with the Maryland Commission. But there is no
9 work- sharing agreement under which charges like Plaintiff’s, which was filed with the Maryland Commission, are deemed cross-filed with DCOHR. And [pursuant to the statute], only charges filed with the DCOHR toll the DCHRA’s limitations period.
Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 15, at 10-11. See Palacios v. MedStar Health, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d
87, 93-94 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[T]the statute of limitations is tolled by the filing of a charge
with the D.C. Office of Human Rights, not just the filing of any administrative charge.”)
(emphasis in original). But see Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, 514 F. 3d 1365, 1372-
4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (where the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia
found that a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC’s New York district office by a
D.C. employee of a New York-based firm was sufficient to “deem[ ] [it] received” by the
DCOHR and to satisfy the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 633 (b), thus allowing plaintiff’s
ADEA claim to proceed). Defendant distinguishes this case on grounds that: (1) the Circuit
Court interpreted a provision of federal law as opposed to the “dissimilar language” of the
D.C. Code provision at issue here; (2) Section 633(b) sets an exhaustion requirement while
D.C. Code Section 2-1403.16 sets a tolling provision; and (3) the Schuler plaintiff explicitly
told the EEOC that his complaint should be cross-filed with the DCOHR. See Def.’s Reply,
ECF No. 15, at 1-12.
This Court concludes that Defendant’s reading of the DCHRA tolling statute is
correct, with the effect that Plaintiff’s administrative complaint failed to toll the statute of
limitations because Plaintiff’s administrative complaint was filed with the Maryland EEOC
office as opposed to the District of Columbia EEOC office. Because any charge of
discrimination filed with the EEOC in the District of Columbia is “automatically cross-
filed with the [DCOHR] . . . pursuant to a ‘worksharing agreement’ between the two
10 agencies,” it is established that “the timely filing of a charge with the EEOC, and the
automatic cross-filling of a claim with the DCOHR that follows, is sufficient to toll the
one-year statute of limitations for filing a claim with the DCHRA.” Ellis v. Georgetown
Univ. Hosp., 631 F. Supp. 2d 71, 78 (D.D.C. 2009) (collecting cases). In contrast,
Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination filed with the Maryland EEOC office did not cross-file
Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination with the D.C. Office of Human Rights, which was
necessary to toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims of sexual
orientation discrimination pursuant to the DCHRA are barred by the statute of limitations
and they shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
D. Causal Nexus between Gender and Non-Selection for the SYDR Position
To state a claim for gender discrimination, Plaintiff must allege a causal nexus
between defendant’s alleged discriminatory motive and the adverse action. Easaw v
Newport, 253 F. Supp. 3d 22, 30 (D.D.C. 2017). A complaint may be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) if it consists only of threadbare recitals of the cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678; see McNair v. District of Columbia, 213
F. Supp. 3d 81, 87-88 (D.D.C. 2016) (letting stand a claim for race discrimination where
Plaintiff pleaded “at least one racially-motivated adverse employment action” but
dismissing a gender discrimination claim because Plaintiff failed to allege any connection
between her gender and the alleged different treatment that she received).
In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that:
Payne was not selected for either position, and instead, male heterosexual candidates at least ten years younger than Payne were hired despite Payne’s vastly superior experience and qualifications. Notably, [the] assertion that Payne was “too correctional” in outlook is a coded way of referring to Payne’s age, which ran contrary to DYRS’s desire to create a modern, ‘new look’ workforce, this and other reasons offered by DYRS for its failure to promote Payne are highly
11 subjective and obviously pre-textural. . . . DYRS fostered a work environment that was intolerant to lesbians or to women who failed to fit into its narrow definition of femininity.
Am. Compl., ECF. No. [7], at 3.
When a case is at “the motion to dismiss stage, the district court cannot throw out
a [discrimination] complaint even if the plaintiff did not plead the elements of a prima facie
case.” Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F. 3d 1016. 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Brady v. Office
of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F. 3d 490, 493 (D.C. Cir. 2008)); Townsend v. United States, 236
F. Supp. 3d 280, 309 (D.D.C. 2017). Nor are “detailed factual allegations” required.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A plaintiff need only allege facts that give the defendant “fair
notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz
v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). Accordingly, “[a] claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at
678. Consistent with these principles, courts in this Circuit “have consistently recognized
the ease with which a plaintiff claiming employment discrimination can survive . . . a
motion to dismiss.” Fennell v. AARP, 770 F. Supp. 2d 118, 127 (D.D.C. 2011) (Kollar-
Kotelly, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question for the Court then becomes
“whether [the plaintiff has] alleged facts that, taken as true, render [her] claim of
[discrimination] plausible.” Harris v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 791 F. 3d 65, 70 (D.C.
Cir. 2015).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
has alleged facts that, taken as true, state a plausible claim for discrimination based on
gender and age. Plaintiff describes her position at the DYRS and some general information
12 about her work history. She claims two specific instances of alleged discrimination relating
to her failure to be promoted despite her qualifications. Plaintiff indicates that she is a
member of a protected class based on her age and gender, and furthermore, that the
candidates who were selected for these positions were not members of a protected class.
Plaintiff inserts some additional commentary as to the Defendant’s possible rationale
behind its decision not to promote Plaintiff. When combined, these allegations “raise
[Plaintiff’s] right to relief above the speculative level.” Brown, 774 F. 3d at 1023 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim for gender
discrimination demonstrates enough of a causal nexus between her gender and the non-
selection for a SYDR position to survive a motion to dismiss.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Defendant’s [12] Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s sexual orientation discrimination claims
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims for gender and age
discrimination remain standing. D Defendant’s non sui juris claims are held in abeyance
until March 8, 2019, while Plaintiff shall be permitted to amend her Amended Complaint
in order to substitute the District of Columbia as the Defendant. If Plaintiff does not
substitute the District of Columbia as a Defendant, the Court will dismiss her Amended
Complaint.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
February 21, 2019 /s/ ______ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE