Sheller–Paire v. Gray

• Decision Date: 27 August 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 11–1043(RJL).
• Citation: 888 F.Supp.2d 34
• Parties: Sillette SHELLER–PAIRE as Personal Representative for the Estate of Dante A. Paire, Plaintiff, v. Honorable Vincent GRAY, Mayor for the District of Columbia, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

888 F.Supp.2d 34

Sillette SHELLER–PAIRE as Personal Representative for the Estate of Dante A. Paire, Plaintiff,

v.Honorable Vincent GRAY, Mayor for the District of Columbia, et al., Defendants.

Civil Case No. 11–1043(RJL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Aug. 27, 2012.

J.B. Dorsey, J.B. Dorsey & Associates, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Patricia B. Donkor, Office of the Attorney General, D.C., Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.

Sillette Sheller–Paire brings this action as the personal representative of the estate of Dante A. Paire ¹ against the District of Columbia's mayor and two of the District's departments, the Office of Attorney General (“OAG”) and the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (“Fire Department”). Plaintiff alleges discrimination under federal and state law as well as claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. Before the Court is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (“Defs.' Mot.”) [Dkt. # 4]. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff began employment as a firefighter and emergency medical technician (“EMT”) with the Fire Department on September 6, 2005. Compl. ¶ 3 [Dkt. # 1]. Plaintiff alleges generally that “[t]hroughout Plaintiff's employment,” he was “harassed and retaliated against due to his race and perceived disability.” Compl. ¶ 8. Specifically, on or about January 4, 2008, plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Lieutenant Robert Edwards, placed him on administrative leave without explanation. Compl. ¶ 9. The battalion fire chief, Kevin Beagley, confirmed his placement on administrative leave and instructed him to contact the Fire Department's compliance office for additional information on his duty status. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that, unlike the other employees on his shift, he was not paid for time worked up to that date. Id. Plaintiff sought and received psychiatric treatment from Dr. Jackson of the Police and Fire Clinic as a consequence of these events. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff also sought treatment from his own psychologist, Dr. Laverne Stanforth, from January 5, 2008 until the plaintiff's death on February 4, 2009. Id.

Plaintiff repeatedly contacted the Fire Department's compliance office and unnamed members of the Fire Department's “upper management” from January of 2008 through July 22, 2008, but was unable to learn the reason for his placement on administrative leave. Compl. ¶ 11–12. On June 11, 2008, plaintiff claims that Drs. Jackson and Stanforth cleared him to return to limited duty, but he was not permitted to return to work. Compl. ¶ 13. On July 22, 2008, the compliance office informed plaintiff “that he had been placed on his own sick leave as opposed to administrative leave.” Compl. ¶ 14. Later that day, plaintiff spoke to “Lt. J. Washington” of the Police and Fire Clinic and was given a limited duty position at “Fire Prevention.” Compl. ¶ 14. The next day, although plaintiff reported for work, battalion fire chief Beagley informed him that he was being placed on sick leave again. Compl. ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that he submitted written requests for the reason for his status change to Assistant Fire Chief Brian Lee on July 29, 2008 but received no answer. Compl. ¶ 16.

On or around December 3, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the District of Columbia Department of Fire and EMS, alleging discrimination and retaliation. Compl. ¶ 6. The Commission dismissed that charge on March 8, 2011. Defs.' Reply, Ex. 1 [Dkt. # 9–1]. On June 6, 2011, plaintiff initiated this suit. See generally Compl. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the District of Columbia's Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C.Code § 2–1401.01 et seq., through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II); negligent supervision (Count III); and discrimination based on race and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq., (Count IV). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 29, 2011.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court may dismiss a complaint or any portion of it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, however, the Court may only consider “the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the court] may take judicial notice.” E.E.O.C. v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C.Cir.1997). In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, 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.” Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C.Cir.1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, factual allegations, even though assumed to be true, must still “be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complainant must “plead [ ] factual content 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Moreover, the Court “need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff[ ] if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994).

ANALYSIS

I. Plaintiff's Claims Against the Named Defendants

Defendants correctly point out that the OAG and the Fire Department are “ non sui juris ” and must be dismissed from this case. Defs.' Mot. 13–14. Subordinate agencies within the District of Columbia's government, such as the OAG and the Fire Department, are not subject to suit without a statutory provision to that effect. See Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514–15, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534 (1952); see also, e.g., Hamilton v. District of Columbia, 720 F.Supp.2d 102, 107–08 (D.D.C.2010). Therefore, the claims against these agencies will be dismissed.

Further, defendants also rightly assert that Mayor Gray is not a proper party in interest because plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Mayor in his personal capacity or in his official capacity. Plaintiff's allegations do not in any way suggest that the mayor was personally involved in the alleged misconduct. See Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 257–58 (D.C.Cir.1993). And suing a municipal official in his official capacity is the equivalent of suing the municipality itself because the official is not personally liable for damages. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 424 (D.C.Cir.1996). Thus, I will construe plaintiff's suit against the mayor as a suit against the District of Columbia. See Henneghan v. Dist. of Columbia Public Schs., 597 F.Supp.2d 34, 37 (D.D.C.2009).

II. Plaintiffs Failure to Provide Adequate Notice Under D.C.Code § 12–309

Plaintiff's DCHRA and common law tort claims must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to satisfy the D.C.Code's notice requirements for suits against the District. D.C.Code § 12–309; Compl. ¶¶ 17–35 (Counts I (DCHRA), II (intentional infliction of emotional distress), III (negligent supervision)). Under D.C.Code § 12–309, a plaintiff seeking to sue the District must provide sufficient notice to the District's Mayor “within six months after the injury or damage was sustained.” Compliance is mandatory because this statute is part of a sovereign-immunity waiver. Johnson v. District of Columbia, 572 F.Supp.2d 94, 111 (D.D.C.2008). This notice requirement applies to nonfederal claims such as plaintiff's claim under the DCHRA, Owens v. District of Columbia, 993 A.2d 1085, 1089 (D.C.2010), and plaintiff's common law tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision, see Blue v. District of Columbia, 850 F.Supp.2d 16, 36–38 (D.D.C.2012); Beeton v. District of Columbia, 779 A.2d 918, 925–26 (D.C.2001); Breen v. District of Columbia, 400 A.2d 1058, 1062 (D.C.1979).

The District contends that it has not received any notice, even though plaintiff alleges that misconduct began on January 4, 2008 and ended on July 23, 2008. Defs.' Mot. 16; Defs.' Mot. Ex. A, Craven Aff. 1–2; see also Compl. ¶¶ 9, 15. Indeed, neither does the complaint indicate that notice was given, see generally Compl., nor does plaintiff's opposition brief cite any facts to contest the District's argument, see generally Pl.'s Opp'n [Dkt. # 6]. Instead, plaintiff wrongly contends that the notice requirements are inapplicable here because “[a]ll actions arising out of the complaint in this matter are based upon the Defendants [sic] violations of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights under federal law.” Pl.'s Opp'n 15.² Plaintiff is plainly mistaken—the DCHRA, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision claims are nonfederal claims and common law claims. Because plaintiff failed to provide the District with adequate notice for these claims, they too will be dismissed.

III. Plaintiff's Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983³

Plaintiff's claim for a remedy against constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must also be dismissed.⁴ To successfully plead a § 1983 claim against the District, plaintiff must plead facts alleging a predicate violation of the Constitution or federal law that...