Coclough v. Dist. of Columbia

• Decision Date: 16 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 19-2317 (BAH)
• Parties: JANICE G. COCLOUGH, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

JANICE G. COCLOUGH, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-2317 (BAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

September 16, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Janice G. Coclough was terminated in 2016 from her position as a Court Security Officer in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and, in 2019, initiated this lawsuit for alleged violation of her constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause against defendants District of Columbia and Richard Parris, in his capacity as Chief Security Officer for the District of Columbia Courts. After defendants removed the action to this Court, see Notice of Removal of a Civil Action, ECF No. 1, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint, see First Am. Compl. for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Monetary Damages, ECF No. 10. Now, pending before the Court are defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which defendants oppose as futile. See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Am. Compl., ECF No. 12; Pl.'s Combined Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl. and Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15¹; Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl., ECFNo. 19. For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied and plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The allegations set out in plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Monetary Damages ("2d Am. Compl."), ECF No. 15-1, are assumed to be true, with the factual circumstances underlying her legal claims described as follows.

A. Court Security Officers at the District of Columbia Courts

The District of Columbia Courts ("D.C. Courts"), including the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, operate as an agency of the District of Columbia ("the District"). Id. ¶ 5. The federal government, through the United States Marshals Service ("USMS"), negotiates contracts with private companies for security services at both federal courts and D.C. Courts, but contracted Court Security Officers ("CSOs") at the D.C. Courts do not report to the USMS as do CSOs in federal courts. See id. ¶¶ 9-11. The District pays "for the contractual services performed at the D.C. Courts." Id. ¶ 9.

In 2011, the contract ("Inter-Con Contract") the USMS had awarded to Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. ("Inter-Con") for security services at the D.C. Courts expired. See id. ¶¶ 7-8. In May 2011, the USMS awarded a contract to Akal Security, Inc. ("Akal") (Contract No.: OJMS-11-D-0512, "Akal Contract") for one year, beginning October 1, 2011, with options to extend to September 30, 2016, id. ¶ 8, for security services at both the D.C. Courts and federal courts in the District of Columbia, see id. ¶ 10.

Richard Parris ("Parris") was the Chief Security Officer for the D.C. Courts from August 2, 2010, through September 30, 2016, see id. ¶¶ 4, 14, 20, and "reported directly to the Deputy Executive Officer for the D.C. Courts," id. ¶ 14. He served as the Contracting Officer'sTechnical Representative ("COTR"). See id. ¶¶ 8, 15. Only the COTR and the government's contracting officer "had the authority to extend or otherwise modify the term(s) of the Contract." Id. ¶ 8. In his COTR capacity, Parris was responsible for "negotiating, implementing, and managing the security contractor for the [D.C.] Courts," id. ¶ 15, having "authority to alter the terms and conditions of the [Akal] Contract pertaining to the D.C. Courts," id., and to "create[] and implement[] all security and logistical protocols, policies [and] procedures[] involving security personnel" at the D.C. Courts, id. ¶ 28.

"Akal acquired and vetted its own applicants" for CSO positions at the D.C. Courts "before submitting the applications of qualified applicants to the D.C. Office of Personnel Management . . . and Federal Occupational Health . . . departments." Id. ¶ 12. After investigative reports and medical examinations of the applicants were completed, Parris reviewed the applications and selected candidates whose applications were forwarded to Akal District Supervisors Lois Epps ("Epps") and Josiah Eaves ("Eaves") for final selection. Id.

Anticipating the expiration of Akal's contract on September 30, 2016, the USMS Judicial Security Division issued a Request for Proposals for Court Security Services. Id. ¶ 17. For the period beginning October 1, 2016, the USMS awarded the contract (Contract No.: DJM-16-A32-V-0023, "Paragon Contract") to Paragon Systems, Inc. ("Paragon"). Id. ¶ 18. Parris allegedly "participated in and was in direct communication with Paragon for the duration of the solicitation, procurement, selection and negotiation of the Paragon Contract." Id. ¶ 19.

B. Plaintiff's Employment as a Court Security Officer

Plaintiff's employment as a CSO commenced on or about October 4, 2010, under the Inter-Con Contract, see id. ¶¶ 7, 22, and she principally worked at the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse, see id. ¶¶ 3, 23. At some point, plaintiff became a Lead Special Security Officer("LSSO").² See id. ¶ 3. Her employment continued under the Akal Contract without her having "to re-apply for her position, re-submit any paperwork, or otherwise re-establish her eligibility" to work at the D.C. Courts. Id. ¶ 23. If there were "any formal or informal 'certification' or other prerequisite for approval to work in the D.C. Courts as a CSO or [LSSO, plaintiff believed] that she attained said prerequisite and that it continued independent of any particular contract or contractor." Id. ¶ 25.

The Akal "Contract governed all aspects of Akal's provision of security services to ... the D.C. Courts," as well as "the terms and conditions of [p]laintiff's employment" as a CSO and LSSO. Id. ¶ 26. Thus, defendants allegedly "control[ed] the day-to-day job activities and location assignments" of security personnel at the D.C. Courts, and "exercised the power to cause termination, demotion, suspension, or other work-related discipline." Id. ¶ 21. Parris allegedly "exercised direct and indirect supervisory control over the terms and conditions of [p]laintiff's employment and over other Akal employees, agents, and contractors assigned to the D.C. Courts." Id. ¶ 4. While plaintiff directly reported to Akal District Supervisors Epps and Eaves, Epps and Eaves reported to Parris and Akal Contract Manager Lawrence Frost ("Frost"). Id. ¶ 26.

Plaintiff believed "that she would continue to be employed by Akal until at least September 30, 2016," id., when the Akal Contract expired. She also believed that the terms and conditions of her employment would remain "largely unchanged" even if the contract were awarded to another security firm. Id. ¶ 29.

C. Plaintiff's Termination

An incident on June 10, 2016, prompted Akal to suspend plaintiff and place her on administrative leave. Id. ¶ 36. Akal did not complete an investigation of the incident. See id. ¶ 34. Notwithstanding Akal's intention "to undertake . . . progressive discipline" designed to "correct" plaintiff's "behavior . . . regard[ing] her relationships [with] her coworkers and management," id. ¶ 32, on that same day, Parris sought plaintiff's immediate removal. He sent Frost an email message stating, in relevant part:

LSSO Janice Coclough's documented behavior (as recently as this morning) has become intolerable in the District of Columbia Courts. Please direct her to turn in her equipment and credentials and permanently remove her from this contract as soon as possible. It is my suggestion that this is handled as a hostile separation and caution is taken by the District Supervisors when retrieving her weapon.

Id., Ex. 2 (emphasis removed); see id. ¶ 34. Thus, plaintiff alleged, Parris "insinuated . . . that [she] was a security threat." Id. ¶ 34; see id. ¶ 90.

At no time during her employment under the Inter-Con and Akal Contracts was plaintiff subjected to disciplinary action. Id. ¶ 24. "Plaintiff had never previously been informed of the 'documented behavior' against her amounting to violations of [the District's] or Akal's policy or procedures." Id. ¶ 35. On June 24, 2016, plaintiff appealed her suspension and placement on administrative leave. Id. ¶ 37. Parris allegedly denied plaintiff's appeal on July 26, 2016. See id. ¶ 38. In plaintiff's view, the appeal was neither fair nor impartial, given that "Parris . . . was the driving force behind her removal from the contract in the first place." Id. ¶ 62. She has alleged that the actions of the District and Parris, "in conjunction with those of Akal, amounted to . . . termination from her employment." Id. ¶ 40.

Plaintiff's termination was effective July 26, 2016. See id. ¶¶ 38, 40.³ In relevant part, the termination letter from Akal stated:

Per Section H-3(d) of the contract between Akal Security, Inc. and the client, you were previously provided and exercised the opportunity to appeal the Government's removal of your credentials. Your appeal documents were received by Akal Security, Inc. and were submitted to the client.

The client has received and denied your appeal, and has upheld [its] previous decision to permanently remove you from performing under the contract[.]

As a direct result of the Government's denial of your appeal and subsequent permanent order of removal, your employment as a LSSO with Akal Security, Inc. is terminated[.]

Id., Ex. 3 (emphasis added).

According to plaintiff, the "client" referenced in the termination letter was the D.C. Courts. Id. ¶ 41. She understood Akal to mean that she could no longer work at a single location (a D.C. courthouse) for a single contractor (Akal) only for as long as the Akal Contract remained in effect. See id. ¶¶ 41, 43-44, 50. Plaintiff believed that she would have been eligible for employment at the D.C. Courts or at a federal courthouse in the...