The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rudolph Contreras United States District Judge
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS
The plaintiff claims that a co-worker subjected her to a series of sexually charged and inappropriate comments over the course of her employment with the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department. After she complained to her superiors, she alleges, she was transferred to a different office. She now brings suit, alleging that her employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. CODE §§ 2-1401.01 et seq. ("DCHRA"). Now before the court is the defendants' motion to dismiss,*fn1 which the court will grant in part and deny in part for the reasons discussed below.
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND*fn2
The plaintiff, Sgt. Joanne Craig, was hired as a police officer by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") in October 1988, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 9, and was assigned to the Seventh District in November 1995, id. ¶ 11. Sgt. Craig first made contact with Sgt. Eric Levenberry in 2006 when the latter was assigned to investigate an incident involving one of the plaintiff's officers. Id. ¶ 12. While conducting the investigation, Sgt. Levenberry was discourteous to the plaintiff, yet respectful of the plaintiff's subordinate male officer. Id. In October 2007, Sgt. Craig had a chance encounter with Sgt. Levenberry, where he made an apparently sexist remark relating to a female co-worker. Id. ¶ 16.
Both Sergeants were assigned to work out of the same office in December 2007. Id. ¶ 18. Beginning in February 2008, Sgt. Levenberry acted rudely toward the plaintiff during group discussions. Id. ¶ 23. Soon thereafter, he began to repeatedly ask her questions of an increasingly personal nature. Id. ¶¶ 24--26, 29, 34. Sgt. Levenberry persisted with his inappropriate behavior through the summer of 2008, commenting on her physical appearance and attire, id. ¶¶ 40--41, and making inappropriate and unwanted physical contact, id. ¶¶ 35--36. He also made tasteless remarks about her sexual life, id. ¶¶ 43, 47, and gave her suggestive looks, id. ¶¶ 41, 48.
In the summer of 2008, Sgt. Craig complained to Lt. Peter Hunt, her superior, about Sgt. Levenberry's conduct. Id. ¶ 37. Her complaint fell on deaf ears. Id. Sgt. Craig next went to Commander Maupin, one of the named defendants, to protest Sgt. Levenberry's actions. Id. ¶ 52. Rather than taking measures against Sgt. Levenberry, Commander Maupin responded by preventing Sgt. Craig from receiving Police Segway Certification training in November 2008.
Id. ¶ 53. Moreover, he denied her requests to participate in a Crisis Intervention Training, as well as the MPD's Take Home Vehicle Program. Id.
On February 26, 2009, the plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claiming gender discrimination and retaliation. Id. ¶ 7. On February 21, 2010, Commander Maupin transferred Sgt. Craig away from the Seventh District, her home of fifteen years, to a temporary detail with the Fourth District, thus moving her farther away from her residence and positioning her with a less desirable assignment. Id. This transfer was made permanent on April 24, 2011. Id. ¶ 57. The plaintiff filed another EEOC charge on February 10, 2012, alleging that the April 2011 transfer was an act of retaliation. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 7. The EEOC issued the plaintiff notice of her right to sue on February 28, 2012. Id.
The plaintiff's second amended complaint sets forth four counts: Sex Discrimination under Title VII (Count I); Retaliation under Title VII (Count II); Sex Discrimination under the DCHRA (Count III); and Retaliation under the DCHRA (Count IV). The defendants move to dismiss all four claims.
A. Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss Under ...