ARNOLD v. CARTER et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 23 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 5/9/17. (lcjeb2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARVIN C. ARNOLD,
Civil Action No. 16-2207 (JEB)
ROBERT SPEER, Acting Secretary of the
Army, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Marvin Arnold worked as a social worker for the U.S. Army. He brought
this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging principally that he was
unfairly deprived of a promotion and constructively discharged. Denying such discrimination,
the Secretary of the Army now moves to dismiss the suit. Because Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently allege facts showing that his age motivated the alleged discrimination, the Court will
dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, but allow Arnold the opportunity to further amend that
Plaintiff has worked overseas for many years as a family-advocacy-program therapist on
behalf of the Army, most recently in Germany. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint) at 10. He “had to
deal with persistent Age Discrimination throughout his tenure from June, 2009 through October,
2013.” ECF No. 11 (Amended Complaint) at 3. More specifically, “Plaintiff applied many
times for promotional opportunities and simple lateral transfer to other jobs but the Age and
Race Discrimination were profound in the supervisory chain.” Id. His Amended Complaint
listed four Defendants and several potential causes of action, but Plaintiff narrowed his suit in
response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, voluntarily dismissing his Title VII cause of action
and all Defendants other than the Secretary of the Army. See ECF No. 17 (Motion to Strike).
All that remains extant, therefore, is his age-discrimination claim.
Plaintiff’s central allegation focuses on his non-selection for the position of Supervisory
Social Worker in Vilseck, Germany. See ECF No. 11-3 (EEOC Decision) at 1-2. His concern is
that the selectee for the job was unqualified or at least less qualified than Arnold himself. See
ECF No. 19 (Opp.) at 5 (“What the Army, the EEOC and the Defendant ha[ve] done is to
concede that the person who was hired was not qualified and in effect this is an acknowledgment
that Discrimination did occur per the ADEA.”). He concludes that the only explanation for the
decision to select a less-qualified applicant is discrimination. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he
was denied an extension of time on his initial tour and was eventually constructively forced to
resign from his position. See Am. Compl. at 3. Arnold contends that each of these acts
constitutes discrimination under the ADEA. Defendant now moves to dismiss the entire
Federal 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.” Although the notice pleading
rules are “not meant to impose a great burden on a plaintiff,” Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544
U.S. 336, 347 (2005), and “detailed factual allegations” are not necessary to withstand a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, [if] accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff
must put forth “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” and there must be “more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
As it must at this stage, the Court treats all of the facts in the Complaint as true. Sparrow
v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In evaluating the sufficiency of
Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider the facts set forth in
Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss as well as “the facts alleged in the complaint, any
documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the court]
may take judicial notice.” Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial
Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d
146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Although a plaintiff may survive a 12(b)(6) motion even if “recovery
is very remote and unlikely,” the facts alleged “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56 (citation omitted).
In moving to dismiss, Defendant sets out three arguments: failure to exhaust, failure to
state a claim, and improper types of damages. The Court looks at each separately.
The government first maintains that Plaintiff has not completed the administrative
process with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in relation to two of his claims —
the denial of an extension of time on his initial tour and the subsequent constructive resignation
— and that those claims are therefore barred by the exhaustion doctrine. See ECF No. 14
(MTD) at 3. “[E]xhaustion requirements, however, are not jurisdictional” in an ADEA case, and
the burden of pleading and proving insufficient exhaustion thus falls on the defendant. Huang v.
Wheeler, No. 16-398, 2016 WL 6108497, at *6 (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 2016) (citing Artis v. Bernanke,
630 F.3d 1031, 1034 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C.
Cir. 1997)). Here, Arnold has not specifically conceded a failure to exhaust these claims, and
thus such a defense is appropriately considered at the summary-judgment stage rather than at this
juncture. Id. These claims, accordingly, cannot be dismissed solely for a lack of exhaustion.
That said, Arnold should be aware that he must ultimately refute the government’s argument that
he has not exhausted each discrete claim of discrimination.
Defendant gains more traction with its next position, which concerns the insufficiency of
the facts pled to support an age-discrimination claim. The ADEA makes it unlawful for an
employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C § 623(a)(1). People forty years and
older are included in the protected class. Id. § 631(a). Plaintiff, born in 1945, thus belongs.
Taking his factual assertions as true, the Court could potentially agree that Arnold was
treated unfairly, but there are not sufficient allegations demonstrating that such treatment
stemmed from discrimination on the basis of age. See Burford v. Yellen, No. 15-2074, 2017 WL
1214398, at *12 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017) (“The Amended Complaint presents no facts to tie these
difficult interpersonal events to age or sex. . . . While these experiences may have been
frustrating . . . , the Amended Complaint does not allege legally-cognizable actions.”); Lurensky
v. Wellinghoff, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2016) (“Plaintiff’s age-discrimination complaint is
that she is 64-years-old, and that there is reason to believe her age must have been a factor in the
workplace. Those allegations – a textbook example of the kind of ‘naked assertions’ prohibited
by Iqbal – are insufficient to support the initiation of discovery, and so the Court will grant
defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff's age discrimination claims.”).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint relies on inferences unsupported by facts and contains
little or no mention of how the Army’s alleged conduct constitutes age discrimination. Aware of
his pro se status, the Court has looked beyond the Amended Complaint in search of a sufficient
factual basis to support his cause of action. See Brown, 789 F.3d at 152. Still, the relief Plaintiff
seeks eludes his grasp. The closest he comes to alleging facts indicating discrimination based on
his age is through an allegation that he was “called out in an administrative meeting about his
age,” Opp. at 5, and that there was an incident “that occurred in October 2009 in which Plaintiff
was laughed at because of his age.” Id. Yet neither of these allegations is ever tied to the
adverse actions of which he complains. In order to proceed, Plaintiff must allege more specific
facts that lay out what happened, who was involved (including, e.g., the age of the person who
was actually promoted), and how such conduct constitutes age discrimination.
As opposed to dismissing the entire action, however, the Court will dismiss only the
Complaint and give Arnold another chance to make the showing laid out above. See Ciralsky v.
CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 666 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (discussing difference between dismissing complaint
and entire action).
Finally, Defendant notes that the ADEA does not provide for punitive or compensatory
damages and that Arnold’s prayer for these damages must be struck. See MTD at 9. The
government is correct. “[T]he text of the ADEA explicitly provides for back pay, unpaid
overtime compensation, and liquidated damages but not compensatory and punitive damages.”
Lindsey v. Dist. of Columbia, 810 F. Supp. 2d 189, 201 (D.D.C. 2011) (quotation omitted); see
also Spaeth v. Georgetown Univ., 839 F. Supp. 2d 57, 65 (D.D.C. 2012). Plaintiff, consequently,
should not include such forms of relief in any subsequent Complaint.
While age-discrimination claims should be construed liberally at the motion-to-dismiss
stage, see Spaeth, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 62, the Court cannot “create something out of nothing.”
Jianqing Wu v. Special Counsel, Inc., 54 F. Supp. 3d 48, 56 (D.D.C. 2014). It will thus dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint, but not the entire action, and give leave to amend. A separate Order so
stating will issue this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: May 9, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?