Douglas v. Dist. of Columbia Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 25 October 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–0610 (ESH)
• Parties: Rayshawn Douglas, Plaintiff, v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

981 F.Supp.2d 78

Rayshawn Douglas, Plaintiff,

v.District of Columbia Housing Authority, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13–0610 (ESH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

October 25, 2013

Gerald L. Gilliard, Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

David Reese Warner, Venable LLP, Vienna, VA, Mona S. K. Haar, Venable, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Rayshawn Douglas has sued the District of Columbia Housing Authority (“DCHA”), William Pittman, and Jessee Millhouse, alleging violations of her rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, and the District of Columbia Whistleblower Protection Act. Before the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, as well as plaintiff's Motion to Amend that complaint, which defendants oppose. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted, and plaintiff's motion to amend will be denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff Rayshawn Douglas has been employed by DCHA since 1998. ( See First Amd. Compl. (“FAC”), June 3, 2013 [Dkt. No. 11] 4–5.) On Friday, October 15, 2010, plaintiff and Ms. Leslie Bilbrue, another DCHA employee, had an altercation near DCHA's North Capital Street location. ( Id. at 5.) The altercation allegedly began when Ms. Bilbrue threw a rolled-up paper towel at plaintiff through the open passenger window of plaintiff's car. Plaintiff responded by throwing a cup of fruit juice out the window at Ms. Bilbrue. ( Id.)

On Monday, October 18, 2010, Ms. Bilbrue reported to a DCHA police officer that plaintiff had thrown antifreeze at her face. ( Id. at 6.) Officer Kimberly Crosby–Scott submitted a sworn affidavit to a D.C. Superior Court judge in support of a warrant to arrest plaintiff for assault with a dangerous weapon. The judge issued the warrant for plaintiff's arrest. ( Id.; Compl., Arrest Warrant, and Aff. in Support of an Arrest Warrant, Oct. 18, 2010 [Dkt. No. 11–3] at 1–2.)

The next day, DCHA Police Lieutenant Jesse Millhouse and two other officers arrested plaintiff outside DCHA headquarters. (FAC at 6.) Plaintiff was released from police custody the next evening. ( Id. at 7.) Prosecutors charged plaintiff in Superior Court with assault and possession of a prohibited weapon. ( Id.; Information, Oct. 20, 2013 [ Dkt. No. 11–4] at 1.)

Plaintiff did not return to work until some point in November 2010. (FAC at 7.) At that point, plaintiff learned from a union official that Ms. Bilbrue had accused plaintiff of verbally harassing her. Plaintiff denied the charge and presented the official with a witness who supported her denial. The official never interviewed the witness. ( Id.)

On December 10, 2010, plaintiff's second charge was reduced from “possession of a prohibited weapon” to “attempted possession of a prohibited weapon.” ( Id. at 8.) On January 10, 2011, plaintiff pled guilty to simple assault and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon. ( Id.) Plaintiff's plea and deferred sentencing agreement required her to avoid Ms. Bilbrue, to complete forty hours of community service, and to enroll in anger management classes. (Plea Agreement and Deferred Sentencing Agreement, Jan. 10, 2011 [Dkt. No. 14–2] at 2–3.) Under the agreement, plaintiff's sentencing was deferred for nine months. ( Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff's experience of being arrested, prosecuted, and returning to an unfriendly work environment “deeply disturbed and bothered” her. (FAC at 8.) Prior to this incident with Ms. Bilbrue, plaintiff occasionally had sought therapy through the C.O.P.E., an employee assistance program. After the incident, she began to visit C.O.P.E. more frequently. In early 2011, plaintiff met with DCHA Executive Director Adrianne Todman. Plaintiff informed Ms. Todman that the arrest, prosecution, and her return to an unfriendly workplace climate made her feel as though she were “going crazy.” Ms. Todman responded that “No one just goes crazy.” Throughout 2011, plaintiff's supervisor, Dena Michaelson, observed plaintiff in various states of visible distress. ( Id. at 9.)

Between April and July 2011, Ms. Bilbrue approached plaintiff and pointed a finger in her face. Plaintiff reported the incident to, among others, DCHA Police Chief William Pittman. Soon after reporting this incident, plaintiff was instructed not to visit the office in which Ms. Bilbrue worked. ( Id. at 10.)

In July 2011, plaintiff claimed that she had been threatened by Alicia Robinson, another DCHA employee. ( Id.) Plaintiff reported the incident to Robinson's supervisor, but no report was filed. ( Id. at 11.)

On August 4, 2011, plaintiff was called into a meeting by the DCHA's Deputy Director of Human Resources, Sabrina Hayes. Ms. Hayes informed plaintiff that Ms. Robinson had filed a written complaint against plaintiff, alleging that in May 2011 plaintiff had rolled her eyes and gritted her teeth at Ms. Robinson and threatened her in front of over a dozen co-workers. ( Id. at 11.) Ms. Hayes did not respond when plaintiff asked whether she had questioned the co-workers to confirm Ms. Robinson's allegations, but she did acknowledge that Ms. Robinson admitted to threatening plaintiff in July 2011. Ms. Hayes then told plaintiff that she had “no reason” to feel threatened by Ms. Robinson's comments or demeanor. ( Id. at 12.)

That same day, plaintiff called another co-worker, Aaron Prue, to discuss her meeting with Ms. Hayes. ( Id.) After the telephone call, plaintiff wanted to continue the conversation in person and went to a parking lot where she believed she would find Mr. Prue. ( Id.) Plaintiff approached the vehicle in which Mr. Prue was sitting, but due to the vehicle's tinted windows, she could not see that Ms. Bilbrue was in the driver's seat. ( Id. at 12–13.) Seconds after plaintiff approached the vehicle, Ms. Bilbrue sped away. ( Id. at 13.) Later that day, Ms. Bilbrue filed a written complaint with DCHA Police alleging that plaintiff stalked and harassed her in the parking lot by screaming while approaching the car and then beating on the car's windows until she sped away. Ms. Bilbrue further alleged that plaintiff had been stalking her since January 2011. ( Id.; see Written Statement of Leslie Bilbrue, August 4, 2011 [Dkt. No. 10–6].)

The next day, August 5, 2011, plaintiff was suspended from work without pay and was removed from the DCHA premises by DCHA Police officers. (FAC at 14.) For the next few weeks, plaintiff could not enter the DCHA premises without specific authorization, and when she was required to enter, she could only do so with an escort from the DCHA Police. ( Id.)

On August 26, 2011, plaintiff was called back to DCHA to meet with Human Resources Director Paulette Campbell. ( Id. at 15.) Ms. Campbell told plaintiff that “everyone was disappointed by [her] actions” and that “everyone had given up on” her. Plaintiff asked Ms. Campbell what actions she believed plaintiff had taken. Ms. Campbell responded that the fact that plaintiff did not know which actions she meant “scared her” because it signaled that plaintiff would do “it” again. Ms. Campbell then asked plaintiff whether she “had seen a mental health professional recently, because ‘a medical condition might possibly be triggering your individual action.’ ” ( Id.) After the meeting, plaintiff was instructed not to contact any offices where Ms. Bilbrue, Ms. Robinson, and Mr. Prue worked. ( Id. at 16.)

On September 21, 2011, DCHA issued plaintiff a notice of detail to Stoddert Terrace, a housing project that plaintiff considered to be in a dangerous part of town. ( Id.) Prior to that detail, her responsibilities had included bringing receipts to the payroll department, handling budgets, completing timesheets. At Stoddert Terrace, “she primarily answered telephones.” ( Id.) In December 2011, plaintiff was reassigned from Stoddert Terrace to the DCHA Regional Office. ( Id. at 18.) On February 2, 2012, plaintiff was demoted from Grade 11, Step 7, to Grade 9, no Step, effective December 6, 2011. (Personnel Action, Feb. 2, 2012 [Dkt. No. 10–20].) The demotion did not decrease plaintiff's salary, but did make her ineligible to receive future step increases. (FAC at 23.) Plaintiff did not learn she had been demoted two grade levels until January 7, 2013. ( Id. at 22.)

On August 27, 2012, plaintiff filed an eight-count complaint against DCHA, Ms. Bilbrue, and Ms. Robinson, alleging, inter alia, that DCHA violated the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by discriminating against her on the basis of a perceived mental disability when detailing her to Stoddert Terrace in September 2011. Douglas v. D.C. Housing Auth. et al., 12–cv–1418, Dkt. No. 1 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 2012). After plaintiff did not timely respond to defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims without prejudice. Douglas v. D.C. Housing Auth. et al., 12–cv–1418, Dkt. No. 27 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2012). The Court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on January 30, 2013. Douglas v. D.C. Housing Auth. et al., 12–cv–1418, Dkt. No. 30 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2013).

On April 30, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint. ( See Compl., April 30, 2013 [Dkt. No. 1] ). Two days later, plaintiff was informed that she would again be detailed to Stoddert Terrace. (FAC at 23–24.) Plaintiff amended her complaint on June 3, 2013. In her First Amended Complaint, plaintiff again alleges, in Count V, that DCHA violated the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against her on the basis of a perceived mental disability when detailing her to Stoddert Terrace in September 2011. ( Id. at 33–34.) Further, in Counts I–III, plaintiff alleges that two police officers and the DCHA violated her Fourth Amendment rights by falsely arresting her in August 2010. ( Id. at 25–28.) Finally, in Count IV, plaintiff alleges that DCHA...