The opinion of the court was delivered by: HARRIS
This is an action alleging discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq. (1977). Plaintiff asserts pendent state law claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the purposes of defendant's motion, the Court accepts as true the following facts that plaintiff alleges in his complaint. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 , 95 S. Ct. 2197 (1975); Gregg v. Barrett, 248 App. D.C. 347, 771 F.2d 539, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Defendant Hill and Knowlton (HK) hired plaintiff Burton Hoffman on March 1, 1985, to work in its Washington, D.C., office.
In 1986, HK asked Hoffman to accept an assignment overseas on behalf of the Republic of Indonesia. When Hoffman completed the assignment, HK asked him to remain in Indonesia to work on its account with the Indonesian government as HK's senior representative. Hoffman and HK executed a written agreement governing Hoffman's employment in Indonesia for one year ending on December 31, 1987. (Plaintiff's ex. 1.)
Hoffman and HK renewed the agreement three times. The original agreement and each renewal contained provisions setting forth the length of the contract "with extension subject to mutual agreement." (Plaintiff's exs. 1 and 2.)
The agreement and the renewals further provided:
In the absence of an extension or other agreement, upon completion of the assignment Mr. Hoffman will revert to his prior status as an employee of . . . Hill and Knowlton/Washington for a period of not less than 180 days from the time of the end of the assignment to Jakarta.
Hoffman notified HK in October 1989 that he planned to return to the Washington, D.C., office in January 1990. When Hoffman returned to the United States, HK's personnel department and its Chief Administrative Officer, Harry B. Oakley, Jr., informed him that HK no longer needed his services and urged him to resign. Hoffman refused to resign, and insisted that HK honor the provision in his contract guaranteeing him employment in the Washington office for 180 days.
HK provided Hoffman "a desk vacated by an intern in a semi-partitioned area in which were located secretaries, other support personnel and office equipment." (Complaint para. 21.) The office manager in Washington informed Hoffman that he opposed Hoffman's return to Washington, and that he had no work to assign Hoffman. HK did not provide Hoffman with a secretary, a computer, or support services, which it did provide to younger, newly-hired employees. (Complaint para. 23.) In addition, HK promoted younger employees to positions for which Hoffman was qualified.
Hoffman protested that HK's treatment of him constituted age discrimination. In response, "Mr. Oakley made certain accusations against Mr. Hoffman . . . and demanded that he resign." (Complaint para. 37.) "The reason given by [HK] for demanding [Hoffman's] resignation, that [Hoffman] injured Hill and Knowlton's interests, was false, pretextual, and was motivated by discriminatory animus and/or reckless disregard for the truth." HK knew that its false reason for demanding Hoffman's resignation "would be communicated internally and . . . would also be communicated to prospective employers to the detriment of [Hoffman]." (Complaint para. 38.) At the end of the 180-day period, HK terminated Hoffman.
"A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46. To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to establish a right to relief. See Gregg, 771 F.2d at 547.
"In libel and slander suits the time and place of the publication should be specifically stated in the complaint." 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1309 (1990). "The use of in haec verba pleadings on defamation charges is favored in the federal courts because generally knowledge of the exact language used is necessary to ...