Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amiri v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

April 1, 2014

ABDUL WAKIL AMIRI, Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., et al., Defendants

Abdul Wakil Amiri, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington , DC.

For Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Errim Britt, Human Resources Manager, Kevin Lomius, Region Vice President, Defendants: Andrea R. Calem, LEAD ATTORNEY, Frank Charles Morris , Jr., EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C., Washington , DC.

Page 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD W. ROBERTS, Chief United States District Judge.

In this action brought pro se under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and " related state law," Compl. at 10, plaintiff sues his former employer, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Human Resources Manager Errin Britt, and Regional

Page 43

Vice President Kevin Lanius for failing to rehire him after a reduction in force in 2009. See Defs.' Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss Compl. of Plaintiff Abdul Wakil Amiri or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J. (" Defs.' Mem." ) [Doc. # 8-1] at 1.[1] He claims unlawful discrimination and retaliation.

Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or for summary judgment under Rule 56 [Doc. # 8], which plaintiff opposes in a prolix response. See Pl.'s Mem. of P.& A. of Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J. [Doc. # 14]. In addition, plaintiff has filed a " Supplemental Affidavit with 3 Exhibits" [Doc. # 16] and defendants have responded to the supplemental affidavit [Doc. # 17]. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the entire record, defendants' motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND

The relevant facts alleged are as follows. Plaintiff worked for Securitas as a security guard from 2002 to August 31, 2009, at Howard University in the District of Columbia. Compl. ¶ ¶ 5, 10. In 2009, Securitas lost its contract with the University and laid off approximately 100 security guards, including plaintiff. Id. ¶ 12. Securitas promised to rehire the laid off security guards but did not rehire plaintiff. Id.

In April 2011, plaintiff filed a discrimination charge with the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights (" OHR" ) based on Securitas' failure to rehire him. Id. ¶ 16. Following mediation proceedings, the parties reached a settlement that was memorialized in writing on September 2, 2011. See Defs.' Mem., Ex. 2. In exchange for plaintiff withdrawing the charge, defendants agreed to provide " a good faith interview for a position within the next 14 business days after [plaintiff had submitted] a new application for employment." Id. Plaintiff accepted that he would be provided an interview " and . . . considered competitively for a position with [Securitas]." Id.

On September 16, 2011, Regional Vice President Lanius interviewed plaintiff for a security guard position but decided not to hire him based in part on statements plaintiff had made during the interview about his " previous employment" that raised " serious concerns about his potential behavior and integrity." Defs.' Ex. 3, Decl. of Kevin Lanius [Doc. # 8-5] ¶ 2. On March 1, 2012, plaintiff filed another discrimination charge with OHR and cross-filed it with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC" ). He admitted that Securitas had " honored the mediation agreement" but claimed that it " continue[d] to retaliate against [him] by refusing to re-hire [him] or place [him]." Defs.' Ex. 4, Charge of Discrimination [Doc. # 8-6]. Plaintiff alleges that Lanius was influenced by Human Resources Manager Britt who allegedly told Lanius, among other things, that plaintiff had made " ugly comments against the Employer." Compl. ¶ 20. Following an investigation, OHR concluded in a decision dated August 30, 2012, that there was " no probable cause to believe that [Securitas] retaliated against [plaintiff] when it interviewed him for employment but did not hire him." Defs.' Ex. 5, Letter of Determination [Doc.

Page 44

# 8-7] at 7. The decision was affirmed on September 27, 2012, Ex. 6, and was adopted by the EEOC on October 16, 2012, Compl. Attach, ECF p. 6 (Dismissal and Notice of Rights). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.