Pietrangelo v. Refresh Club, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JAMES E. PIETRANGELO, II,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 18-cv-1943 (DLF)
REFRESH CLUB, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff James E. Pietrangelo, II, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Refresh
Club, Inc. and The Wing DC, LLC (collectively, The Wing), seeking monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief for alleged violations of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 (DCHRA), D.C.
Code §§ 2–1401.01 et seq. Dkt. 1. Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt.
11. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The Wing is an emerging “network of work and community spaces” that offers its
members a forum for meeting and working, as well as other amenities and programming. Defs.’
Br. at 1, Dkt. 11. The company1 was founded in 2016. Id. at 3. In addition to physical work and
meeting space, The Wing provides its members with on-site dining, gym, and shower facilities,
plus meditation rooms and library services. Compl. ¶ 11(1)(h).2 In this way, The Wing
1
The parties dispute whether The Wing is a private club or a place of public accommodation, see
Compl. ¶¶ 10–11, but that dispute is irrelevant to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Any
references to The Wing as a “company” or other entity should not be construed in any way as
resolving that dispute.
2
The complaint contains two paragraph 11s, which the Court will refer to as 11(1) and 11(2).
resembles other co-working networks such as WeWork (one of The Wing’s major investors). Id.
¶ 11(1)(c). Yet The Wing differs from more traditional co-working spaces in that it is
specifically designed for and marketed to women. Defs.’ Br. at 1–3. For example, The Wing
offers screenings of female-directed films and presentations by prominent female politicians.
Compl. ¶ 11(1)(h); Defs.’ Br. at 3. And it sells tickets to public events such as “Friday Night
Feminism.” Compl. ¶ 11(1)(w). The Wing also produces its own print magazine called No
Man’s Land. Id. ¶ 11(1)(x).
At the time this action was filed, The Wing operated facilities in New York City and
Washington, D.C., and had arrangements to open additional locations in the coming years. Id.
¶ 8. To gain admission to The Wing, aspiring members were required to answer a few questions
in an online application3 and pay between $215 and $250 per month. Id. ¶¶ 11(1)(k), (ll). As of
September 2018, more than 26,000 people had applied to become members. Gelman Decl. ¶ 4,
Dkt. 11-3. As of the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint, The Wing had over 1,500 members
across all its locations, and at least 349 of those members used the D.C. location. Compl.
¶¶ 11(1)(hh), (kk).
Pietrangelo lives in D.C., where he spends his time writing. Id. ¶ 15. Finding his
apartment complex an unsuitable venue for his work, Pietrangelo applied for membership at The
Wing’s D.C. location on June 4, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 16–18. The next day, he spoke over the phone
with two employees of The Wing who informed him that his application would be permanently
deferred because the company offered membership exclusively to women. Id. ¶¶ 21–23. To this
3
The Wing’s online application asks prospective members, among other things, “why the
applicant wants to join The Wing, how the applicant has supported women, and what the biggest
challenge facing women today is.” Compl. ¶ 11(ll). The application also asks prospective
members to submit a social-media profile, which the plaintiff alleges is used to discover the
applicant’s sex or gender identify. Id. ¶¶ 11(ll)–(mm).
2
day, Pietrangelo continues to be constructively denied membership through a permanent deferral
of his application. Id. ¶ 23.
On August 20, 2018, Pietrangelo brought this action for unlawful sex discrimination.
Dkt. 1. He argues that The Wing is a “place of public accommodation” under the DCHRA and
that it unlawfully discriminated against him on account of his gender. Compl. ¶¶ 9–11(2).
Pietrangelo repeatedly urges that, at the time he submitted his application, it was both the
practice and policy of The Wing to exclude men from its membership. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 9, 11(2).
The Wing denies that its discriminatory practice had any impact on Pietrangelo. At the
time Pietrangelo applied, The Wing claims it evaluated applicants primarily based on their
ostensible “commitment to The Wing’s mission—i.e., the advancement of women.” Defs.’ Br.
at 4. Thus, according to The Wing, Pietrangelo would have been denied admission regardless of
his gender because of his failure to demonstrate a sufficient commitment to the company’s
mission of female community and empowerment. Id. at 2, 7. As proof, The Wing offers
Pietrangelo’s membership application. Martinelli Decl. Ex. 1, Dkt. 15-2.4 The Wing argues that
because of its “highly selective” screening process—under which only eight percent of
applicants are granted membership—Pietrangelo would have been denied admission even if The
Wing had not considered his gender. See Defs.’ Br. at 3–4, 10–14.
The Wing concedes that its “practice” when Pietrangelo applied for membership was to
admit “only women and non-binary individuals.” Id. at 5; see also Gelman Decl. ¶ 6. But in
4
In response to the question, “Why do you want to become a member of The Wing?”
Pietrangelo noted that it “[l]ook[ed] like a great place to work and network in a nurturing
environment.” See Martinelli Decl. Ex. 1. When asked “[h]ow [he had] promoted or supported
the advancement of women” he responded that he had “always supported and advocated for
equality for all people.” Id. When asked what he thought was the “biggest challenge facing
women today” he replied: “[t]he same challenges facing men.” Id.
3
August 2018, shortly after this action was filed, The Wing adopted a formal written policy to
govern its admissions practices. Gelman Decl. ¶ 7. The new policy “provides that all applicants
will be evaluated based on their commitment to The Wing’s mission, regardless of their
perceived gender or gender identity.” Id. The Wing updated its website to reflect the new policy
and made plans to begin training its employees to implement the policy in October 2018. Id.
¶¶ 8–9. Aside from these two steps, the extent to which the policy has actually been
implemented or applied remains uncertain.
On September 26, 2018, The Wing filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) in
which it advances three arguments related to this Court’s jurisdiction. First, The Wing asserts
that Pietrangelo lacks standing because he failed to draw a causal connection between his injuries
and the defendants’ alleged exclusionary practice. Defs.’ Br. at 10. Second, The Wing argues
that Pietrangelo has failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction because his claim for monetary
damages does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Id. at 14. Third, The Wing
claims that its newly formulated membership policy renders Pietrangelo’s claims moot. Id. at
18.5
5
After briefing on the motion to dismiss, Pietrangelo filed four motions asking this Court to take
judicial notice of various news articles, social-media posts, and websites. Dkts. 17, 18, 19, 20.
Because the defendants did not oppose these motions within the time provided in Local Civil
Rule 7(b), the Court will grant them as conceded. See Local R. Civ. P. 7(b) (if a party declines
to file a memorandum in opposition to a motion within fourteen days of service or such other
time as the Court directs, “the Court may treat the motion as conceded”). Ultimately, however,
these materials are not necessary to the Court’s decision, and the Court cites them below only to
the extent they include admissions by a party opponent and only for the limited purpose of
shedding additional light on the likelihood that The Wing might revert to its former practice of
excluding men despite its new policy to the contrary. See infra n.10.
4
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to
dismiss an action or claim when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). A motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) “presents a threshold challenge to the
court’s jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Federal district
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Thus, “the
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Moran v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 820 F. Supp. 2d 48, 53 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)).
“When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court must treat the plaintiff’s factual
allegations as true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from
the facts alleged.” Jeong Seon Han v. Lynch, 223 F. Supp. 3d 95, 103 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Those factual allegations, however, receive “closer scrutiny” than
they would if the court were considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a
claim. Id. Also, unlike in the Rule 12(b)(6) context, a court may consider documents outside the
pleadings to evaluate whether it has jurisdiction. See Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402
F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005). If, at any point, the court determines that it lacks jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the claim or action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3).6
6
Although the defendants seek dismissal with prejudice, “a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction generally is not a decision on the merits and therefore should be without prejudice.”
Montgomery v. Comey, 752 F. App’x 3, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
5
III. ANALYSIS
A. Standing
To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a concrete injury-in-fact that is (2)
fairly traceable to the defendant’s action and (3) redressable by a favorable judicial
decision. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009). A court “has an independent
obligation to assure that standing exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by any of the
parties.” Id. at 499. If standing does not exist, the court may not “step[] where the Constitution
forb[ids] it to tread” by addressing the merits. Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 830 F.3d 511,
513 (D.C. Cir. 2016). When evaluating whether a plaintiff has standing, a court “must accept as
true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the
complaining party.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975).
The Wing contends that Pietrangelo’s claim fails at the second step—traceability—
because he has not alleged but-for causation. In The Wing’s words, Pietrangelo “has not
properly pleaded that he would have been admitted [to The Wing] absent the alleged gender
discrimination and thus has not pleaded that the allegedly discriminatory policy caused him any
injury.” Defs.’ Br. at 2. This argument fails for three reasons.
First, the Complaint does allege that The Wing refused to admit Pietrangelo because of—
and solely because of—his sex. Although the complaint does not use the familiar label “but-for”
causation, it alleges that The Wing denied Pietrangelo access to The Wing “simply because he is
a man,” Compl. ¶¶ 25, 26 (emphasis added), and that “[t]here was no legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason or basis” for its decision, id. ¶ 29; see also id. ¶ 21 (alleging that a
representative of The Wing informed Pietrangelo that he “would automatically be denied
membership by The Wing simply because he is a man” (emphases added)).
6
The Wing disagrees, arguing that Pietrangelo’s “own description of his application (as
well as his answers to the questions on the application) make clear that he would not have been
admitted regardless of the alleged gender discrimination.” Defs.’ Br. at 11. But the Wing
assumes too much. At this stage, Pietrangelo’s allegations must be presumed true, and all
reasonable inferences from those allegations must be drawn in his favor. Even if it turns out to
be true that Pietrangelo would have been denied membership in the Wing in the absence of a
discriminatory policy, that factual question is not for the Court to resolve on a motion to dismiss.
Although it is true that allegations receive “closer scrutiny” on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion than they
would if the Court were considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, Jeong
Seon Han, 223 F. Supp. 3d at 103, it is equally true that courts must avoid resolving issues
contested on the merits under the banner of standing, see, e.g., Schnitzler v. United States, 761
F.3d 33, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[I]n reviewing the standing question, the court must . . . assume
that on the merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Safe Food & Fertilizer v. EPA, 350 F.3d 1263, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[W]here
plaintiffs’ merits claim, if correct, would establish causation for standing purposes, that element
of standing is deemed adequately shown[.]” (citation omitted)); Ass’n of Am. R.R.s v. Dep’t of
Transp., 38 F.3d 582, 585 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (to establish standing, a party need only make
“colorable legal arguments that the injury” complained of was “caused by” the defendant’s
conduct); Public Citizen v. FTC, 869 F.2d 1541,1549 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (cautioning that parties
may not “bootstrap standing analysis to issues that are controverted on the merits”). That is
particularly true where, as here, the plaintiff has not yet had the benefit of discovery, and the
factual record remains incomplete. See Kern v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir. 2009)
7
(“[W]hen the jurisdictional facts are inextricably intertwined with those central to the merits, the
court should resolve the relevant factual disputes only after appropriate discovery[.]”).
Pietrangelo has adequately alleged that the sole reason for his exclusion from The Wing
was his gender and that no other, non-discriminatory reason justified that exclusion. Naturally,
The Wing disputes this allegation. But even assuming that Pietrangelo’s application failed to
establish a commitment to The Wing’s mission, it is far from clear at this stage that The Wing
would have viewed such a failure as a significant selection criterion at the time Pietrangelo
applied. Indeed, it is not even clear that The Wing applied any criteria other than gender in
evaluating prospective members. Although the complaint alleges that The Wing had many more
applicants than members, see Compl. ¶¶ 11(1)(hh), (kk), it also alleges that the application
process “was not rigorous or (significantly) selective,” id. ¶ 11(1)(ll), and that “there [wa]s little
to no real investigation of applicants before they [we]re granted membership,” id. ¶ 11(1)(yy).
More to the point, the complaint alleges that “The Wing’s only real membership criteria [wa]s
being or identifying as a woman” and that “the membership device” itself “[wa]s simply a
subterfuge to illegally exclude men.” Id. ¶ 11(1)(zz). As a result, the complaint alleges that “all
or virtually all . . . women who appl[ied] for membership in The Wing [we]re either granted
membership or [we]re put on waiting lists due to building capacities and [would be] eventually
granted membership.” Id. ¶ 11(1)(aaa).
The Wing disputes these allegations and asserts in its motion that at the time Pietrangelo
applied, “the primary criterion for membership was an applicant’s commitment to The Wing’s
mission[.]” Defs.’ Br. at 4. But that assertion cannot be squared with the allegations in the
complaint. Nor is it supported by The Wing’s declarations, which concede that when Pietrangelo
applied, “The Wing’s practice was to admit as members only women and non-binary
8
individuals” and that The Wing adopted a formal policy of evaluating candidates “based on their
commitment to The Wing’s mission” only after Pietrangelo filed this suit. Gelman Decl. ¶¶ 6–7;
see also id. ¶ 9 (stating that The Wing’s employees would not be trained on this new admissions
policy until October 2018, four months after Pietrangelo was denied admission). In short, the
extent to which The Wing actually evaluated its prospective members’ commitment to women—
as opposed to their status as women—remains a contested issue central to the merits that the
Court cannot resolve at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Second, even if Pietrangelo had failed to allege but-for causation, it would not make a
difference because the DCHRA permits recovery where discrimination is merely one factor
among several in denying an individual access to public accommodations. See D.C. Code Ann.
§ 2-1402.31 (prohibiting the denial of public accommodations “wholly or partially for a
discriminatory reason based on” a person’s “actual or perceived[] . . . sex, . . . gender identity or
expression” (emphasis added)). “[U]nder the DCHRA,” a plaintiff “may prevail by proving that
the [defendant’s] action was motivated ‘partially’ by a discriminatory reason, even if it also was
motivated by permissible reasons not, in themselves, pretextual.” Furline v. Morrison, 953 A.2d
344, 353 (D.C. 2008). Thus, to prevail under the DCHRA, Pietrangelo need only show that his
gender was a reason for his exclusion—not that it was the sole or dispositive reason.
The Wing counters that it is irrelevant that “local law” permits recovery without but-for
causation because the question for standing purposes is what level of causation the Constitution
requires. Defs.’ Reply at 1, Dkt. 15. But the Court is not aware of any authority suggesting that
Article III’s traceability requirement imposes a constitutional floor of “but-for” causation in
every case, regardless of the level of causation required to prevail on the merits. See Nat’l
Treasury Employees Union v. Whipple, 636 F. Supp. 2d 63, 73 (D.D.C. 2009) (“[Article III] does
9
not require that the challenged action must be the ‘sole’ or ‘proximate’ cause of the harm
suffered, or even that the action must constitute a ‘but-for cause’ of the injury[.]” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). To the contrary, in several contexts, the Supreme Court and D.C.
Circuit have expressly rejected standing challenges to claims premised on causation theories that
fall short of the strict but-for standard The Wing urges here. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. EPA,
549 U.S. 497, 523 (2007) (standing established where an agency’s refusal to act “contribute[d]”
to the plaintiff’s injuries); Cmty. for Creative Non–Violence v. Pierce, 814 F.2d 663, 669 (D.C.
Cir. 1987) (standing established where a defendant’s actions served as “a substantial factor
motivating [a] third part[y’s] actions”); Am. Rivers v. FERC, 895 F.3d 32, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
(explaining that a plaintiff who challenges an agency’s failure to follow a legally mandated
procedure “need demonstrate only that the procedural step was connected to the substantive
result, not that the agency would have reached a different substantive result but for the alleged
procedural error” (internal quotation marks omitted)).7
Third, The Wing focuses exclusively on Pietrangelo’s denial of admission as the relevant
injury-in-fact but ignores the numerous other injuries alleged in his complaint, including the
“indignity, embarrassment, humiliation, pain, suffering, mental anguish, and/or loss of
7
Moreover, federal courts have repeatedly applied Title VII’s analogous “mixed-motive” or
“motivating-factor” standard without ever suggesting that they might lack subject-matter
jurisdiction to enforce it. See, e.g., Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 173–74 (2009)
(explaining that Title VII provides relief where “an improper consideration was a motivating
factor for an adverse employment decision” even if “other factors also motivated the practice”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Ginger v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340, 1345 (D.C.
Cir. 2008) (explaining that a plaintiff “may bring a mixed-motive case” under Title VII “in
which he does not contest the bona fides of the employer’s justifications but rather argues race
was also a factor motivating the adverse action” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Likewise,
the D.C. Court of Appeals has never suggested that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the DCHRA’s
“partial” discrimination standard, even though it “look[s] to federal standing jurisprudence” for
guidance in applying its own case-or-controversy requirement. Friends of Tilden Park, Inc. v.
District of Columbia, 806 A.2d 1201, 1206 (D.C. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
10
enjoyment of life” he allegedly experienced as “a direct and proximate result of The Wing’s
intentionally discriminatory policies, practices, acts, and conduct.” Compl. ¶ 30; see also id.
¶ 27 (alleging that The Wing’s “policies” and “statements” “demeaned” Pietrangelo and made
him “literally [feel] like a second-class citizen”). These stigmatic injuries do not turn on
Pietrangelo’s exclusion from or admission to The Wing. See, e.g., Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S.
728, 738 (1984) (male plaintiff established injury-in-fact based on stigmatic harm inflicted by a
statute that “subject[ed] him to unequal treatment . . . solely because of his gender” even though
he had no hope of obtaining the statutory benefit provided to women). Rather, Pietrangelo’s
emotional and dignitary injuries arise from his subjection to a discriminatory policy that, at the
very least, prevented him from competing for membership in The Wing on a level playing field.
See Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 154 F.3d 487, 493 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he
alleged victim of unequal treatment does not have to prove that the challenged policy was the
‘but for’ cause of his injury; the claim that the litigant was denied equal treatment is sufficient to
constitute Article III ‘injury in-fact.’”); see also Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors
of Am. v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993) (“When the [defendant] erects a barrier that
makes it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of
another group, a member of the former group seeking to challenge the barrier need not allege
that he would have obtained the benefit but for the barrier in order to establish standing.”).
The two out-of-circuit cases on which The Wing relies do not require a different result.
See Yeager v. General Motors Corp., 265 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2001); Pugsley v. Police Dep’t of
Boston, 472 Mass. 367 (Mass. 2015). Neither case involved mixed-motive or motivating-factor
discrimination. Nor did the plaintiffs seek recovery for emotional injuries separate and apart
from the benefit (employment) ultimately withheld as a result of the challenged selection
11
process. In any event, the defendants in both cases selected candidates based on rigid, numerical
criteria that conclusively demonstrated that the plaintiffs could not have obtained a position even
on a level playing field. See Yeager, 265 F.3d at 395 (emphasizing that the defendant “hired fifty
apprentices,” and at least “fifty candidates with higher unadjusted [test] scores outranked [the
plaintiff]”); Pugsley, 472 Mass. at 371–72 (emphasizing that the defendant would have had to
hire “eighty-five candidates ranked ahead of the plaintiff on [an] eligibility list” before
considering him for a position). Here, by contrast, the parties dispute whether The Wing actually
applied any non-discriminatory criteria when considering applicants, and the only neutral
criterion The Wing points to (commitment to the advancement of women) is subjective and
potentially correlated with gender, raising factual questions of pretext that cannot be resolved on
a motion to dismiss.
In short, Pietrangelo did allege but-for causation. But he was not required to under the
DCHRA or Article III. And, at any rate, he seeks to vindicate stigmatic injuries that do not rise
or fall on his admission to or exclusion from The Wing. For any one or all of these reasons, his
claim must proceed.
B. Amount in Controversy
The Wing next argues that “Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden [of establishing the
amount-in-controversy requirement] to support diversity jurisdiction.” Defs.’ Br. at 15. The
Court disagrees.
To invoke a court’s diversity jurisdiction, the value of a claim must exceed $75,000. 28
U.S.C § 1332(a). Further, “[w]hen a plaintiff invokes federal-court jurisdiction, the
plaintiff’s amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith.” Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014); see also Mt. Healthy City Bd. of
Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 276 (1977) (“The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is
12
apparently made in good faith.” (alteration adopted and internal quotation marks omitted)). “It
must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to
justify dismissal. The inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court
jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction.” St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.
v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938).
According to The Wing, Pietrangelo “alleges in conclusory fashion that he is entitled to
$12 million in compensatory and punitive damages[.]” Defs.’ Br. at 15. But Pietrangelo
elsewhere requests relief “in excess of $75,000,” Compl. at 30, and the Court need not accept the
outer boundary of Pietrangelo’s claim for damages to conclude that he has alleged over $75,000
in damages in good faith, see Info. Strategies, Inc. v. Dumosch, 13 F. Supp. 3d 135, 140 (D.D.C.
2014) (“Even a cursory allegation of the amount in controversy, if it exceeds the jurisdictional
requirement, is sufficient to evade dismissal.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Therefore, Pietrangelo’s request for monetary damages satisfies the amount-in-controversy
requirement unless it appears “to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the
jurisdictional amount[.]” St. Paul, 303 U.S. at 289.
The Wing suggests that “[n]othing in the Complaint provides any plausible basis for
asserting that the damages from the inability to access The Wing . . . were anything more than de
minimis, let alone in excess of $75,000.” Defs.’ Br. at 15. But, in doing so, The Wing focuses
primarily on a single injury—Pietrangelo’s inability to obtain a suitable co-working space—and
underestimates the potential value of his emotional damages and other relief.
Another district judge on this Court recently addressed this very issue in a case arising
under the DCHRA and D.C. Family Medical Leave Act, D.C. Code § 32–503(a). See Parker-
Williams v. Charles Tini & Assocs., Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 149 (D.D.C. 2014). After the defendant
13
there sought removal to federal court, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand on the grounds that
she had not satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement. Id. at 151. The court found the
requirement satisfied despite the fact that the complaint only requested damages “in excess of
$5,000.” Id. The court explained,
The compensatory damages alone may be sufficient to cross the $75,000 threshold.
While Plaintiff argues that this is impossible because her monetary losses were limited to
her annual earnings of $27,000, this ignores the fact that she is also demanding damages
for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, [and] loss of enjoyment of
life. While recovery under the DCFMLA is limited to monetary damages, the DCHRA
allows for the award of non-pecuniary damages[.]
Id. at 152 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff here requests similar
non-pecuniary relief—in an amount “in excess of $75,000”—and The Wing has failed to
demonstrate why he cannot recover that amount, to a legal certainty.
The Wing suggests that Pietrangelo cannot recover the jurisdictional amount because the
DCHRA empowers the D.C. Human Rights Commission to seek no more than $50,000 in civil
penalties in public enforcement actions for violations of the statute. Defs.’ Br. at 16. But the
statutory provision The Wing cites, D.C. Mun. Regs. Tit. 4 § 212.6, limits only the recovery of
civil penalties in enforcement actions initiated by the D.C. Human Rights Commission—not the
recovery of compensatory and punitive damages by private plaintiffs. Indeed, courts and juries
have awarded damages for DCHRA violations in excess of this $50,000 threshold on numerous
occasions. See, e.g., Martini v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 977 F. Supp. 464, 479 (D.D.C. 1997)
(plaintiff in DCHRA gender-discrimination case awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages
for “emotional pain and suffering”), vacated on other grounds, 178 F.3d 1336 (D.C. Cir.
1999); Medina v. District of Columbia, 643 F.3d 323, 325, 328 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (plaintiff in
DCHRA race-discrimination case awarded $90,000 in compensatory damages for “emotional
distress and humiliation”).
14
Further, even if Pietrangelo’s compensatory damages alone were not enough to establish
jurisdiction, he also seeks punitive damages that could easily push the value of his claims over
the $75,000 threshold. See Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Assocs., 673 F.2d 547, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
(per curiam) (punitive damages can satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement if they have
“a colorable basis in law and fact”). Contrary to The Wing’s suggestion, Pietrangelo alleges that
The Wing discriminated against him intentionally, with actual malice and evil intent.8
Pietrangelo could therefore, in theory, be entitled to punitive damages that far exceed any award
for actual damages. Parker-Williams, 53 F. Supp. 3d at 153 (explaining that “punitive damages
are considered a valid and sometimes even integral component of recovery under the DCHRA”
and that they are available “if the defendant acts with evil motive or actual malice” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Although no precise mathematical formula governs the degree to
which punitive damages must be tethered to compensatory damages, the Supreme Court has
acknowledged the historic and widespread use of double, treble, and quadruple damages in
various legal contexts, and has suggested that single-digit multipliers will ordinarily be viewed
with less suspicion than double-digit multipliers. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003).
Finally, in addition to compensatory and punitive damages, Pietrangelo seeks injunctive
relief that could require The Wing to incur significant compliance costs—for example, by
modifying its marketing materials, retraining its employees, or potentially making physical
alterations to its facilities to accommodate men. See Smith v. Washington, 593 F.2d 1097, 1099
8
See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 31 (“The Wing’s illegal discrimination against Plaintiff as described above
was/is egregious: brazen, flagrant, intentional, willful, wanton, actually malicious, motivated by
evil and ill-will, deliberately oppressive, outrageous, and willfully and callously disregardful of
the rights of Plaintiff.”); id. ¶ 36 (same); ¶ 45 (same); ¶ 54 (same).
15
(D.C. Cir. 1978) (in valuing declaratory and injunctive relief for purposes of the amount-in-
controversy requirement, courts may look “to the cost to the defendants to remedy the alleged
[legal violation]”). The Wing urges the Court not to consider these costs because The Wing
already incurred them when it changed its policy voluntarily in August 2018. Defs.’ Reply at
11–12 n.7. However, it is well settled that the amount-in-controversy requirement is assessed as
of the date the complaint is filed, and “[e]vents occurring subsequent to the institution of suit
which reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.” St.
Paul, 303 U.S. at 289–90; see also Cuneo Law Grp., P.C. v. Joseph, 920 F. Supp. 2d 145, 150
(D.D.C. 2013) (distinguishing between “subsequent events that change the amount in
controversy and subsequent revelations that, in fact, the required amount was or was not in
controversy at the commencement of the action” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, the prospect of changing The Wing’s practices and policies to conform to the
DCHRA must be considered and valued in assessing Pietrangelo’s claims.
For all these reasons, it does not appear to a legal certainty that Pietrangelo’s claim for
damages and other relief is for an amount less than the jurisdictional requirement. Thus, he has
properly pled the amount in controversy necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction.
C. Mootness.
Finally, The Wing asserts that Pietrangelo’s claims for injunctive, declaratory, and
monetary relief have become moot in light of The Wing’s newly adopted membership policy.
Defs.’ Br. at 19. The policy “provides that members will be selected based on [their]
demonstrated commitment to The Wing’s mission of the advancement of women, regardless of
[their] perceived gender or gender identity.” Id. at 5–6. The Wing is mistaken.
16
1. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
It is well established that “[u]nder Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may
adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S.
472, 477 (1990). Further, the “actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not
merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S.
43, 67 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim becomes moot “when the issues
presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Schmidt v. United States, 749 F.3d 1064, 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
An important exception this general rule is the doctrine of voluntary cessation. See
United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953) (“[V]oluntary cessation of allegedly
illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i.e., does
not make the case moot.”). Under this exception, intervening acts undertaken by the defendant
will render a case moot only when there is “no ‘reasonable expectation’ that the challenged
practice will resume after the lawsuit is dismissed.” Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Hillsborough Cty.
Aviation Auth., 162 F.3d 627, 629 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440
U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). “The defendant carries the burden of demonstrating that there is no
reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated[.]” Am. Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 636 F.3d 641,
648 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw
Env’tl Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000) (“[A] defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance
moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly
wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”).
17
The intervening event said to end the live controversy in this case is The Wing’s new
membership admissions policy. Yet, at this stage of the proceeding, whether The Wing’s new
policy has actually cured the alleged discrimination remains in dispute. For example, The
Wing’s website describes the company as “[a] diverse community open to all.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 35
n.21, Dkt. 14. But it contained the same proclamation even before this action was filed—i.e., at
the exact time the company concedes that it admitted only female applicants. Id. The Wing
assures this Court of its recent commitment to equality, citing the “significant time and
resources” it has devoted to the adoption and implementation of the new membership policy.
Defs.’ Reply at 18. However, The Wing has yet to admit any male members or even adapt its
facilities to provide a restroom open to men, without which it can hardly be considered a
“diverse community open to all.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 34–35. Nor does The Wing claim to have
reconsidered Pietrangelo’s application in light of its new policy, making it useless to him as a
practical matter.
In support of its position, The Wing catalogues several cases in which courts have found
claims moot in the face of a defendant’s voluntary act. See Defs.’ Br. at 20. But these cases
generally concern situations in which a defendant has expended great financial resources to
demonstrate its lasting commitment to the change, see, e.g., Houston v. 7-Eleven, No. 13-cv-
60004, 2014 WL 351970, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2014) (structural renovations to business site);
Profil Institut Fur Stoffwechselforschung GbmH v. ProSciento, Inc., No. 16-cv-2762, 2017 WL
3575621, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017) (change in company name), or situations in which the
efficacy of the intervening change is not in dispute, see Guelich v. Mounds View Indep. Pub. Sch.
Dist. No. 621, 334 F. Supp. 1276, 1279 (D. Minn. 1972) (“[A]ll the facts taken together make it
clear that the burden of meeting [the voluntary cessation] requirement has been met. . . . There
18
seems to be no question that plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief have thus
been mooted.”); Nat’l Min. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 251 F.3d 1007, 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(similar); Am. Bankers Ass’n v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 271 F.3d 262, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(similar). Neither situation is the case here. A vague allusion to having spent “significant time
and resources” on the adoption and implementation of the new policy is insufficient to support a
finding of mootness in light of the disputed evidence already discussed. Because it is not
“absolutely clear” that The Wing’s newly inaugurated membership policy will prevent further
gender discrimination, it cannot be said to moot the claims here. See Friends of the Earth, 528
U.S. at 190.9
2. Monetary Relief.
Even if Pietrangelo’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot, his claim for
damages would remain ripe. It is widely recognized that voluntary cessation of an unlawful act
does not moot a viable claim for damages. See, e.g., Cook v. Colgate Univ., 992 F.2d 17, 19 (2d
Cir. 1993) (“[A] viable claim for damages generally avoids mootness of the action.”). Such
relief is intended to compensate an injured party for past conduct. Accordingly, The Wing’s
reliance on Daskalea v. Washington Human Society, 710 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2010) and
Flanigan’s Enters. v. City of Sandy Springs, 868 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017) is misplaced. In
Daskalea, the court found the plaintiff’s sole claim for damages unviable as a matter of law. 710
F. Supp. 2d at 42. And Flanigan analyzed a claim for nominal damages, 868 F.3d at 1264,
9
The possibility that The Wing might revert to its previous practice of excluding men is
particularly concerning in light of several recent social-media posts by The Wing or its CEO that
suggest to the public that The Wing continues to exclude men even under its new policy. See,
e.g., Second Mot. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 3, Dkt. 18 (promoting an event page that describes the
Wing as “a place for women and people of all marginalized genders” and urges would-be
attendees to “[p]lease note that The Wing is a space for women and nonbinary folks only”).
19
whereas the plaintiff here seeks actual—and significant—damages. Finally, and contrary to The
Wing’s assertion, failure to plead economic injury does not moot Pietrangelo’s claim for
damages. Defs.’ Br. at 21. The DCHRA expressly permits damages for non-pecuniary injuries,
D.C. Mun. Regs. § 4-211.1, such as those allegedly suffered here. Accordingly, Pietrangelo’s
claim for monetary damages is not moot.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The
plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are granted as conceded under Local Civil Rule 7(b). A
separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
________________________
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
United States District Judge
June 4, 2019
20