United States District Court, District of Columbia
N. MCFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
Omene has sued her former employer, Accenture Federal
Services (“Accenture”), alleging that it
subjected her to unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and
harassment. Accenture moves to dismiss Ms. Omene's Second
Amended Complaint. As Ms. Omene largely fails to rebut or
even address Accenture's arguments, the Court will grant
Accenture's motion and dismiss Ms. Omene's Second
Amended Complaint. But the Court will grant Ms. Omene leave
to file another amended complaint.
provides management and technology services to government
clients. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 32. Ms. Omene
began working as a software developer specialist with
Accenture in late 2014, and in June 2015, Accenture assigned
her to a project for the U.S. Postal Service. Id.
¶ 11. Johnny Wen was Ms. Omene's manager on the
Postal Service project. Id. ¶ 12.
to Ms. Omene, working under Mr. Wen was unpleasant, and
“on multiple occasions, ” he “expressed a
desire to remove [her] from his team.” Id.
¶¶ 14, 16. Ms. Omene is African American, and Mr.
Wen, who is Asian, allegedly wanted to build an all-Asian
team. Id. ¶¶ 12-13, 15. Mr. Wen allegedly
also complained that Ms. Omene, who was around 50 at the
time, was too old and was not a man. Id. ¶ 15,
17. According to Ms. Omene, Mr. Wen reassigned her projects
“to younger team members who were . . . 30 and under,
male, and Asian.” Id. ¶ 17. Ms. Omene
complained to Human Resources, but they allegedly took no
action. Id. ¶ 21. Accenture eventually removed
Ms. Omene from the Postal Service project- allegedly at Mr.
Wen's direction-and reassigned her to a new project for
“PCORI.” Id. ¶¶ 17, 27, 29.
had a bad experience there, too. She alleges that her new
supervisor subjected her to “daily abuse, intimidation,
and harassment.” Id. ¶ 30. A different
PCORI team member, Kim Vay, allegedly “supervised and
scrutinized [Ms. Omene's] work unlike any other team
members, ” “yelled at and belittled [Ms. Omene]
in the presence of other employees, ” “assigned
deadlines for tasks that she knew were impossible” for
Ms. Omene to complete, and took other unspecified
“steps to ensure that [Ms. Omene] failed in [her]
position.” Id. ¶ 31. Ms. Vay allegedly
wanted to replace Ms. Omene. Id. ¶ 35.
According to Ms. Omene, when she asked why Ms. Vay wanted to
replace her, “[Ms. Vay] had no answer other than
‘because I can.'” Id. ¶ 36. Ms.
Omene alleges that she again complained to Human Resources to
no avail. Id. ¶¶ 40- 41, 43.
Omene alleges that the stress from work took a toll on her
health. Id. ¶ 44. She sought treatment for
stress and anxiety, and her doctor placed her on disability
leave. Id. ¶¶ 44- 45. Her doctor
confirmed, she claims, that she suffered from “neck
stiffness . . . and pain in her arm [and] neck.”
Id. ¶ 46. In November 2016, Ms. Omene's
doctor allegedly “updated [Accenture] with information
concerning [Mr. Omene's] medical condition.”
Id. ¶ 45.
Ms. Omene was “out on disability” in November
2016, Accenture terminated her. Id. ¶ 49. She
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) exactly 300 days
later, alleging that Accenture terminated her because of her
“age, race, national origin, and disability,
retaliation, and color.” Id. ¶ 7. Ninety
days after the EEOC issued a Notice of Right-to-Sue, Ms.
Omene filed this action. Id. ¶ 8.
Omene raises many claims for relief under six counts. First,
she raises an age discrimination claim under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(“ADEA”). Id. ¶¶ 51-57.
Second, she claims discrimination based on race, gender,
color, and national origin under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Id. ¶¶ 58-64. Third,
she claims discrimination based on her disability under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Id. ¶¶ 65-74. Fourth, she claims that
Accenture interfered with her rights under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and its local
counterpart (“DCFMLA”). Id. ¶¶
75-80. Fifth, she claims Accenture retaliated
against her for exercising her rights under the FMLA and
DCFMLA. Id. ¶¶ 81-86. Finally, she claims
that Accenture wrongfully terminated her employment.
Id. ¶¶ 87- 90. Accenture has moved to
dismiss all six counts. See Def.'s Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 33; Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to
Dismiss (“Def.'s Mem.”), ECF No.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal
of an action where a complaint fails “to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” To survive a motion
to dismiss, a complaint must state a claim that is
“plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To meet the
“plausibility standard” and survive dismissal, a
plaintiff must “plead factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
evaluating a motion to dismiss, courts must “treat the
complaint's factual allegations as true . . . and must
grant [the] plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can
be derived from the facts alleged.” Sparrow v.
United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir.
2000) (cleaned up). But courts need not accept as true legal
conclusions couched as factual allegations or draw inferences
unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint.
Grant v. Ent. Cruises, Inc., 282 F.Supp.3d 114, 116
(D.D.C. 2017). Ultimately, applying the motion to dismiss
standard is a “context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Omene has conceded the claims in her Second Amended Complaint
by failing to address Accenture's arguments for
dismissal. First, Ms. Omene has conceded her claim for
wrongful termination. Accenture persuasively argued that Ms.
Omene failed to allege a connection between her termination
and a public policy not already protected by another statute,
as required to state a claim for wrongful termination in the
District of Columbia. See Def.'s Mem. at 23-24
(citing Jones v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 943
F.Supp.2d 90, 94 (D.D.C. 2013)). Ms. Omene did not respond.
See generally ...