The opinion of the court was delivered by: Urbina, District Judge.
DENYING DEFENDANT AMRITSAR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This civil-rights matter comes before the court upon defendant
Amritsar Auto Services Company, LLC's ("Amritsar") motion for
summary judgment. The plaintiff, Bryan Greene, alleges that the
individual defendant, Balvir Singh Johal ("Johal"), a taxicab
driver for Amritsar, refused to provide service to the plaintiff
because of the plaintiffs race, in violation of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., and the
District of Columbia Human Rights Act, as amended, D.C.Code §§
1-2519 et seq. ("DCHRA"). Upon consideration of the parties'
submissions and the relevant law, the court denies the
The gravamen of the complaint is that the plaintiff attempted
to procure taxicab service from defendant Johal, who allegedly
refused service on account of the plaintiffs race. See id. ¶¶
13-15. The plaintiff states that on the night of April 2, 2000,
at about 9:30 p.m., he tried to hail a taxicab from the entrance
of a hotel, located in the southwest quadrant of the District of
Columbia. See id. ¶ 10. "Neatly" attired in a black baseball
jersey, green checkered shorts, army-green socks, black
sneakers, and eyeglasses, the plaintiff carried a green knapsack
and a white shopping bag. See id. ¶ 11. He had walked the few
blocks from his office in the HUD building to the hotel. See
id. ¶ 10. The plaintiff explains that catching a taxicab at the
hotel is easier than trying to get one on the street outside the
HUD building, which is "virtually deserted" at that hour. See
id. The plaintiff entered the hotel lobby through a back
staircase, walked across the lobby, and exited the front door of
the hotel in order to have the hotel doorman hail him a taxicab.
See id. ¶ 12.
The plaintiff signaled to the hotel doorman that he wanted a
taxicab and "tendered himself in a fit and proper state to be
transported as a taxicab passenger." Id. ¶ 13. As defendant
Johal dropped off a Caucasian passenger at the curb, the hotel
doorman alerted the taxicab driver to the presence of the
plaintiff by "tapping the side of the taxicab and telling the
driver to stop so that the plaintiff could get in." See id. ¶¶
12-14. According to the plaintiff, defendant Johal looked
directly at him, "sized him up, and then began slowly to pull
away from the curb." Id. ¶ 14. The doorman alerted defendant
Johal twice of the plaintiffs desire to catch a taxicab, but
defendant Johal "refused to stop . . . and intentionally refused
to provide taxicab service to [the plaintiff]," allegedly "on
the basis of the plaintiffs race, color, or personal
appearance." See id. ¶¶ 14-15.
The plaintiff subsequently initiated the present action,
demanding a jury trial, and asserting the following four causes
of action against the defendants: (1) violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.; (2)
violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, as
amended, D.C.Code §§ 1-2519 et seq.; (3) breach of the common
law common-carrier duty, and; (4) negligent supervision.*fn1
See id. ¶¶ 23-38. For his injuries, the plaintiff requests
injunctive relief ordering the defendants to cease all racially
discriminatory activity, an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. See id.
A. Legal Standard for Summary ...