Gezahey v. Greater Wash. Oncology Assocs./American Oncology Network

• Decision Date: 16 February 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-2838 (JMC)
• Parties: FESEHATSION GEZAHEY, Plaintiff, v. GREATER WASHINGTON ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES/ AMERICAN ONCOLOGY NETWORK, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

FESEHATSION GEZAHEY, Plaintiff,
v.
GREATER WASHINGTON ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES/ AMERICAN ONCOLOGY NETWORK, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 22-2838 (JMC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

February 16, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jia M. Cobb, U.S. District Court Judge

Plaintiff Fesehatsion Gezahey, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint in the District of Columbia Superior Court against Defendant Greater Washington Oncology Associates/American Oncology Network, alleging discriminatory termination on the basis of age, race, and national origin in violation of federal law and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.^[1]Defendant removed the case to this Court, then moved to dismiss. Because the Court concludes that Mr. Gezahey's Complaint states a plausible claim for relief, that Mr. Gezahey properly exhausted his administrative remedies, and that the Complaint satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Defendant's alternative motion for a more definite statement is likewise DENIED.

1

I. BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2022, Fesehatsion Gezahey, acting pro se, filed a Complaint in the D.C. Superior Court alleging that he was “terminated from [his] job at the Greater Washington Oncology Associates/ American Oncology Network” and that “[his] termination was discriminatory based on age, race & national origin in violation of Title VII & the DC Human Rights Act.” ECF 1-1 at 2. Mr. Gezahey's Complaint alleges a series of incidents involving a manager named Jessica Crown, who Mr. Gezahey says bullied him about his foreign origin and accent, denied him an office key even though “white employees” were given one “as soon as they were hired,” and forced him to submit to repeated examinations to see if his “hands were shaking,” telling him that “[o]ld people like you have shaky hands.” Id. Mr. Gezahey further alleges that Ms. Crown “treat[ed] the white staff as her best trusted friends, but she treated [Mr. Gezahey] with suspicion . . . because of [his] race, nationality, and age,” id., that she “told the hiring Nurses that they should hire young & female Medical Assistants,” id., and that she routinely made Mr. Gezahey wait to use the bathroom and to choose what food to eat at lunch, id. at 3.

Mr. Gezahey was terminated by Ms. Crown on August 11, 2021, for purported performance issues. ECF 5-1 at 2. But Mr. Gezahey alleges that his termination “had nothing to do with the unsubstantiated and false incidents reported, and everything to do with the fact that [he does] not fit preconceived notions of what a caretaker/nurse/phlebotomist should look like as an Ethiopian (black) man over 60 years old.” ECF 1-1 at 2. He contends the previous management had been happy with his performance. Id. Mr. Gezahey also alleges that he experienced multiple incidents of “harassment & bullying” at the hands of Ms. Crown, id., and that after he complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) he was faced with multiple acts of retaliation including withholding his IRS W-2 form, refusing to give him his paid-time-off money,

2

and giving false information to the employment office that led to the denial of his unemployment benefits, id. at 3.

Mr. Gezahey filed a charge with the EEOC on December 9, 2021. ECF 5-1. He received his right to sue letter on May 20, 2022. ECF 5-3. He then filed a timely Complaint in the D.C. Superior Court, seeking compensation for lost wages and pain and suffering, along with punitive damages, attorneys' fees,^[2]and reinstatement. ECF 1-1. Defendant removed the case to this Court. ECF 1. Defendant then filed a “Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Motion for More Definite Statement” of Mr. Gezahey's claims, contending (a) that the Complaint fails to plausibly state a claim for relief under Title VII or the D.C. Human Rights Act, (b) that Mr. Gezahey had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and (c) that the Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading standard in Rule 8(a)(2). ECF 5. Plaintiff filed an Opposition, ECF 12, and Defendant replied, ECF 13.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

“To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); accord Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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 evaluating a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), a court must “treat the complaint's factual

3

allegations as true” and “grant [the]...