Doe v. Lee
| Decision Date | 14 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-cv-0085 (DLF),19-cv-0085 (DLF) |
| Parties | JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Jane Doe brings this action against two of her former employers, The Office of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (Jackson Lee's Office) and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF). Second Am. Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. 36. Doe worked first as an intern for CBCF and later as a Special Assistant in Jackson Lee's Office. Id. ¶ 2. She alleges that during her time in Jackson Lee's Office, the defendants unlawfully retaliated against her after she threatened to sue CBCF because her supervisor allegedly raped her while they worked at CBCF in 2015. Id. ¶¶ 2, 12-21. Before the Court are Jackson Lee's Office's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 24; CBCF's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 23; and CBCF's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 40. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the defendants' motions.
According to the complaint, Doe began work as a 19-year-old in the CBCF Internship Program in August 2015. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11. There, CBCF's internship coordinator, Damien Jones, supervised her. Id. ¶ 10. On October 24, 2015, CBCF required all interns to attend a fundraiser event at CBCF headquarters. Id. ¶ 12. Following the event, Jones invited Doe to dinner and purchased a margarita pitcher for the table. Id. ¶ 13. He then ordered an Uber to his house for both of them and offered Doe marijuana and more alcohol. Id. Doe can only partially recall the events that followed, but she claims that Jones raped her that evening. Id. ¶ 14-25. She reported this incident to Representative Terri Sewell, and CBCF placed Jones on leave immediately. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. Doe also reported the assault to the police, who began an investigation. Id. ¶ 29.
In October 2016, Doe notified CBCF that she intended to pursue legal action against the organization. Id. ¶ 30. At the time, A. Shuanise Washington served as CEO of CBCF and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee served as the Vice Chair of CBCF's Board of Directors. Id. ¶ 31. Doe met with CBCF representatives and attorneys about her allegations, but she ultimately chose not to pursue a lawsuit. Id. ¶ 30.
After Doe graduated from college, Jackson Lee's Office hired Doe as a Special Assistant and Director of Public Engagement in October 2017. Id. ¶¶ 33-36. On November 6—her first day working in the Office—Doe learned that Jones had expressed interest in a job with the Office as well. Id. ¶ 37. Doe then told Jackson Lee's Chief of Staff, Glenn Rushing, that she had a "prior situation" with Jones and was not comfortable working with him. Id. ¶ 38. Doe cannot recall whether it was then, or in a later March 2018 conversation, that she told Rushing that Jones had sexually assaulted her, id. ¶ 59, but "Mr. Rushing responded that he understood, and that he decided not to hire Mr. Jones because he had a situation with CBCF and they could not have him working in the office as a result," id. ¶ 38.
In the following months, Doe performed various tasks for Jackson Lee's Office. See id. ¶¶ 39-47. One of her duties was to occasionally use her personal vehicle to drive Jackson Lee tovarious events. Id. ¶ 48. During one of these drives in November 2017, Jackson Lee's phone was malfunctioning, and Doe attempted to resolve the issue while the congresswoman attended an event. Id. ¶ 49. The IT team instructed Doe to charge, back up, and reset the phone. Id. According to Doe:
During this process, a text message appeared from the then-CEO of CBCF, A. Shuanise Washington, to Representative Jackson Lee, which read something to the effect of:
Id. Doe alleges that this "was a clear reference to the fact that Ms. Doe had asserted legal claims against CBCF and the fact that Mr. Jones had raped Ms. Doe." Id. ¶ 50. Doe does not allege that Jackson Lee ever saw or responded to this message. But a few weeks later, Washington and Jackson Lee served on a panel together at a CBCF event. Id. ¶ 52.
In January 2018, Doe was involved in an accident on her way to pick up Jackson Lee. Id. ¶ 53. Doe alleges that in the weeks following the accident, "Mr. Rushing and Representative Jackson Lee both pressured Ms. Doe to buy a new car so that she could continue to drive Representative Jackson Lee as needed." Id. ¶ 54. After Doe showed Rushing "a printout summary of the car that she intended to purchase" in late February, her bank denied her loan application. Id. ¶¶ 56-57. She was, however, able to purchase a different car on March 13, 2018, and the car was shipped to Doe's home state of Alabama. Id. ¶ 65. Doe then told Rushing that she "planned to go to Alabama and bring the car back to Washington, D.C. so that she could continue to drive Representative Jackson Lee," but she decided to "wait until the end of the month when Congress was on Easter recess" to pick up the car. Id. ¶ 65.
Just a few days earlier, on March 9, 2018, Doe had "told Mr. Rushing that she recently learned more about her case involving Mr. Jones and CBCF, and [she] planned to move forward with legal action against the CBCF." Id. ¶ 58. Rushing responded "during the March 9, 2018conversation by saying that he understood, and that he supported Ms. Doe because his daughter had been in a similar situation and chose not to move forward." Id. ¶ 59. Doe then asked Rushing to schedule a meeting for her with Jackson Lee. Id. ¶ 60. He agreed to do so, but then "repeatedly said that Representative Jackson Lee was unavailable" over the next few weeks. Id. ¶¶ 60-61. "Doe also personally asked Representative Jackson Lee, but Representative Jackson Lee refused" and said "that the two would talk later." Id. ¶ 61. Doe alleges that after she reported to Rushing that she would be pursuing legal action, Jackson Lee "began avoiding Ms. Doe and speaking with her less frequently." Id. ¶ 63.
According to Doe, at a March 20, 2018 event, Jackson Lee "noticed Ms. Doe in the room," and then allegedly sent a text message to Rushing "saying something to the effect of, 'What is she doing here?'" Id. ¶ 66. Rushing, who was not at the event, then texted Doe and told her "that Representative Jackson Lee did not want her at the event and that she should leave." Id.
On March 29, 2018, Doe met with Rushing and Greg Berry, Jackson Lee's Chief Counsel. Id. ¶¶ 67-68. Rushing allegedly told Doe that the Office Id. ¶ 68. Doe claims that Rushing's assertions are unfounded, and that the Office hired an IT staffer and a Finance Director after her termination. Id. ¶¶ 69-71. Rushing refused to respond to any of Doe's later questions as to why she was terminated and also hired another candidate to perform "substantially similar job duties to those that Ms. Doe completed." Id. ¶¶ 72, 74. Doe claims that "[k]nowing that she was fired because she reported the rape in 2015" has increased her anxiety and depression and furtheralleges that termination by Jackson Lee's Office has "derailed" her career. Id. ¶¶ 77, 79.
Doe brought suit against CBCF and Jackson Lee's Office on January 11, 2019. Compl., Dkt. 3. She first amended her complaint in April, alleging that: (1) Jackson Lee's Office violated the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., see First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 82-89, Dkt. 20; (2) CBCF violated the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq., see id. ¶¶ 90-97; (3) CBCF tortiously interfered with Doe's contractual rights, business relationships, and prospective economic advantages, see id. ¶¶ 98-104; and (4) CBCF intentionally inflicted emotional distress against Doe, see id. ¶¶ 105-08.
CBCF and Jackson Lee's Office both moved to dismiss the claims against them in the First Amended Complaint. See CBCF's Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl.; Office of Jackson Lee's Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. Doe then again amended her complaint to add a fifth claim, which alleged that CBCF also violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 109-17. CBCF moved to dismiss the new count against it. See CBCF's Mot. to Dismiss Second Am. Compl.
Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must contain factual matter sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facially plausible claim is one that "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This standard does not amount to a specific probability requirement, but it does require "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A complaint need not contain "detailedfactual allegations," but alleging facts that are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability . . . stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Well-pleaded factual allegations are "entitled to [an] assumption of truth," id. at 679, and the court construes the complaint "in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged," Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks...
To continue reading
Request your trial