United States District Court, District of Columbia
KESSLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rosa Arias ("Plaintiff) brings this action against
Defendant, Marriott International, Inc.
("Defendant" or "Marriott"), for herself
and others similarly situated. This matter is presently
before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification
[Dkt. No. 11].
consideration of the Motion, Opposition [Dkt. No. 57], Reply
[Dkt. No. 59], and the entire record herein, and for the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion shall be denied.
2003, Plaintiff Rosa Arias began working in the Housekeeping
Department at Defendant's Washington Marriott at Metro
Center. Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 3, 16, 19
("SAC") [Dkt. No. 31]. In fulfilling her
housekeeping duties, Ms. Arias regularly used hazardous
chemicals without the use of Personal Protective Equipment
("PPE"). Id. ¶¶ 3, 16, 17. Ms.
Arias asserts that as a result I of working with these
chemicals without PPE, she suffered severe eye irritation,
headaches, j i respiratory illness and chest
pain. Id. ¶ 4.
2015, Ms. Arias requested a four-month medical leave of
absence. Id. ¶ 5. While on leave, Ms. Arias
gave deposition testimony in another case, Sanchez v.
Marriott Corporation, 12-cv-1577 (D.D.C.), a Title VII
suit against Defendant's affiliate Marriott Corporation,
about the chemicals she used in her job. SAC ¶¶
7-12. The day before she intended to return to work, Ms.
Arias was informed by Marriott that she would be terminated.
Id. ¶14. Nonetheless, on September 20, 2015,
Ms. Arias returned to her position at Defendant's hotel
after nearly four months of unpaid leave. To the Court's
knowledge, Ms. Arias remains employed at Defendant's
about June 15, 2015, Ms. Arias filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Corrected
Notice of Removal at 1 [Dkt.No.2]. On August 8, 2015,
Marriott filed a Notice of Removal from D.C. Superior Court
[Dkt. No. 1]. On September 10, 2015, Ms. Arias filed her
Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. No. 11]. With leave of
the Court, on April 21, 2016, Ms. Arias filed a Second
Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 30], which is now the operative
Complaint in this matter. Although the Second Amended
Complaint initially set forth eight claims, Ms. Arias
voluntarily dismissed three claims before the Court
considered Marriott's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 33]. In a Memorandum Opinion
[Dkt.. No. 53] addressing Ms. Arias' five remaining
claims, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Marriott's Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed Ms.
Arias' racial discrimination claim, wrongful termination
claim, and aggravated assault claim. As a result, three of
Ms. Arias' claims have survived: (1) retaliation under
Title VII, (2) breach of contract, and (3) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
December 4, 2016, Defendant filed its Opposition to the
Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. No. 57]. Ms. Arias filed
her Reply in Support of the Motion on January 3, 2017.
WHERE WE STAND NOW
noted, Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification became ripe
on January 3, 2017. Thereafter, the lawyer who had been
representing Ms. Arias, had a medical problem and asked for a
Court has read the briefs for the Motion for Class
Certification and has concluded that Plaintiffs original
counsel is indeed in need of a great deal of additional help
in moving forward with the Motion for Class Certification.
See Dkt. No. 53 at 17 n. 6.
Court inquired from appropriate individuals at the District
of Columbia Bar about the need for additional help for
Plaintiffs counsel, but they indicated that they would not ...