Woolcock v. Michaels Organization LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
CHANNER WOOLCOCK, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-cv-1375 (TSC)
)
)
THE MICHAELS ORGANIZATION )
LLC., )
)
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINON
Plaintiff Channer Woolcock filed this employment discrimination action against
Defendant The Michaels Organization LLC., in D.C. Superior Court on April 10, 2023, Original
Case File, ECF No. 8 at 2. On May 15, 2023, Defendant removed the case to this court, Notice
of Removal, ECF No. 1.
In her original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that she was employed by Defendant as the
community manager of its Wardman Courts apartment complex, in which she also lived. She
claimed that “as a female employee, her pay was significantly less than male employees in
comparable positions,” id. at 3, and when she notified her management of the pay disparity
“defendant began a campaign of retaliation against her,” id. at 4. On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff
resigned from her position but retained her apartment at Wardman Courts. Id. at 5. Defendant
responded by raising her rent and isolating her from other tenants. Id.
Page 1 of 4
Defendant moved to partially dismiss the Complaint on May 31, 2023, arguing that it did
not give “fair notice” of the basis for Plaintiff’s race and color discrimination claims. ECF No. 6
at 3.
On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9, and on June
29, 2023, Defendant partially moved to dismiss it as well, ECF No. 10. Again, Defendant argued
that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint failed to give fair notice of her claims. Id. at 1. On
July 3, 2023, the court denied without prejudice Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss because
Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that “she is a member of a protected class who suffered an
adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.”
Minute Order 1, 07/03/2023 (quoting Massaquoi v. District of Columbia, 81 F. Supp. 3d 44, 49
(D.D.C.2015)). The court did, however, require Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint
with “dates for alleged events, as well as the names of involved individuals.” Minute Order 2,
07/03/2023.
Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint on August 4, 2023, ECF No. 12, and once
again Defendant has moved to partially dismiss it, arguing that Plaintiff cannot proceed with her
District of Columbia-based legal claims because she has failed to “identify any source of District
of Columbia law that gives rise to her claims,” ECF No. 13 at 1.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must comply with Rule 8,
which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This requirement is meant to “give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (alteration in original)).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
Page 2 of 4
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 brings her employment discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e – 2000e-17, as well as “the comparable state laws of the
District of Columbia,” but she does not specify which District of Columbia law provides her a
cause of action. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 12 at 2. In her opposition brief, Plaintiff argues
that claims brought pursuant to the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”) are
analyzed “under the same legal standard” as federal employment discrimination claims;
therefore, Defendant should be “on notice” of her DCHRA claims. ECF No. 14 at 2 (citation
omitted). The court disagrees.
Courts in this District have held that pleading a general reference to District of Columbia
law in support of an employment discrimination claim is not sufficient to meet Rule 8(a)’s
pleading standards. See e.g., Pyne v. District of Columbia, 298 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2002)
(“Plaintiff has failed to reference a specific law or statute, or even generally describe what law
has been violated. Such pleading does not satisfy notice pleading requirements under Federal
Rule 8(a).”). Furthermore, “plaintiffs may not amend their complaints through briefs in
opposition to motions to dismiss.” Woytowicz v. George Washington Univ., 327 F. Supp. 3d
105, 119 n.4 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Middlebrooks v. Godwin Corp., 722 F. Supp. 2d 82, 87 n.4
(D.D.C. 2010)).
Given that Plaintiff is represented by counsel and has twice amended her complaint, her
District of Columbia-based employment discrimination claims will be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Page 3 of 4
Date: September 13, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
Page 4 of 4