United States District Court, District of Columbia
MARY E. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
B. WALTON, United States District Judge
plaintiff, Mary E. Chambers, filed her amended complaint
against the defendant, the District of Columbia (the
"District"), on November 13, 2015, alleging that
the District retaliated against her for filing a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") in 2011, discriminated against
her on the basis of her gender and age, and created a hostile
work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 to -17
(2012) ("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (2012)
("ADEA"). Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.")
¶¶ 1, 10-15. Currently before the Court is
Defendant the District of Columbia's Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment ("Defi's Mot.").
careful consideration of the parties' submissions,
Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant
the District's motion.
plaintiff is a Support Enforcement Specialist in the Child
Support Services Division of the District's Office of the
Attorney General. Am. Compl. ¶ 3. According to the
plaintiff, the Office of the Attorney General
permitt[ed] male employees under the age of 40 years to
transfer to other departments and receive incentive awards
and special awards after their transfers[, ] but denied [the
plaintiff] and another female employee the same opportunity
to transfer to other units or receive incentive awards and
special awards. . . . [A] male co-worker had communication
and performance issues with customers but was not
disciplined[, ] but [the plaintiff] was disciplined because
she had filed a charge of employment discrimination with the
Id. ¶ 10.
March 4, 2011, the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination
with the EEOC and the District's Office of Human Rights,
alleging that she was discriminated against based on her
gender and retaliated against for filing a prior charge of
discrimination in August 2010. Def's Mot., Exhibit
("Ex.") 1 (Charge of Discrimination No.
570-2011-00598) at 3. On August 14, 2014, the EEOC mailed to
the plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights, in which the
plaintiff was informed that "the EEOC [wa]s closing its
file on th[e] charge[s she had filed] . . . [because, b]ased
upon its investigation, the EEOC [wa]s unable to conclude
that the information obtained establishes violations of the
statutes." Complaint ("Compl."), Ex. 1
(Dismissal and Notice of Rights No. 570-2011-00598) at 1.
November 20, 2014, the plaintiff filed her Complaint in this
case. Id. at 1. On October 23, 2015,
the Court granted the District's motion to dismiss all of the
plaintiffs claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), but did so without prejudice. Order at 1-2 (Oct.
23, 2015), ECF No. 15. Specifically, the Court noted that it
was "unable to discern a factual predicate for any of
the plaintiffs claims, " Id. at 4, and offered
the plaintiff the opportunity to amend her Complaint,
Id. at 10. The plaintiff then filed her Amended
Complaint on November 13, 2015, alleging discrimination based
on gender and age, the creation of a hostile work
environment, and retaliation. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1,
STANDARD OF REVIEW
12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint "state[s] a
claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule
12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v.
Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw [a] reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). While the Court must "assume [the]
veracity" of any "well-pleaded factual
allegations" in a complaint, conclusory allegations
"are not entitled to the assumption of truth."
Id. at 679. Thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "In determining
whether a complaint states a claim, the court may consider
the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached
thereto or incorporated therein, and matters of which it may
take judicial notice." Abhe & Svoboda, Inc.
v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citation
The Plaintiffs Age Discrimination & Hostile Work
District moves to dismiss the plaintiffs age discrimination
claim, contending that she failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies as to this claim. See
Def's Mem. at 4. Specifically, the District argues that
the plaintiffs age discrimination claim fails as a matter of
law because she did not include it in her administrative
charge of discrimination, as "[t]here is no claim,
explicit or implied, in the [c]harge of [discrimination
relating to age." Id. The Court agrees with the
District that the plaintiff did not exhaust her
administrative remedies as to her age discrimination ...