UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) EMILE B ADIBANGA, ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1781 (RM C) ) HOW AR D U NI VE RSI TYHOSP ITA L, ) ) ) Defendan t. ) )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Emile Ba dibang a, a f

orm er em p l o y ee o f H o wa rdUn i v er s i ty Hospital (the “H ospital”), fi le d a tw o c ount C omp la int , a lle g ingte rm inatio n o f his e mpl oy me nt i n r e ta liatio n f

or e ng a g ingin protec ted ac tiviti es (Count I ) and discr imination arising f rom a hostile work e nvironment (Count I I ), both in violation of Title VI I , 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16, and the D .C. Human Rights Ac t, D.C. Code § 2-1402.11. The H ospital moves t o d ismiss the hostile work envir onment claim bec ause Mr
. Ba dibang a’s a lleg ations do not rise to the l ev el re q u i re dto make out such a claim. B eca

use the allega t i o n s do not indicate that the wor kplace was pe rmeated with discriminatory intimi dation, ri dic ule , a nd ins ult or that the be havio r t

hat to wh ic h M r. B a dib ang a wa s su bje c te d w a s su ff

ic ie ntl y
sever e or pe rsuasive to a lter the c onditio n s o f em p l oy ment, Mr. B adibang a has f ailed to state a hostile work environme nt claim. The Court will g rant the H ospital’s motion and will di smiss C ount I Iof the Com pla int
. I. F AC TS Mr . B a dib ang a , a

nativ e of the De moc ra

tic Re pu bli c of the Con g o, wa s hir e d in July2

of 2003 to work as a Phlebotomy Processing Assistant at the Hospital. He alleg es in his Ame nded Complaint t hat in ear ly

2006 he wa s called to testify befor e the Hospital’s Hu man Resourc es Depa rtment on beha lf of cow orker s who claimed the y wer e being terminated due to their rac e and/or national orig in. A m. Compl. ¶ 17. The manag ers of the Phlebotomy Depa rtment, Michelle B est and G in a M a tt ia , o f

f e r e d M r . B a d ib an g a tw o h o ur s o f le av e s o h e c o u ld av o id te s tif y ing. Id
. ¶ 18. Despite this offe r, Mr. B adibang a testified. Id
. ¶ 19. Mr. B adibang a alleg es that af ter he testified he wa s subjected to consta nt hara ssment by

Ms. Be st and Ms. M attia. Id . ¶ 20. He alleg es that the hara s s m ent i ncluded “ rec eiving multipl e disciplinary actions for

things for

which he w as not responsible.” Id . ¶ 21. Another supervisor, Ro z el Craig , alleg edly told Mr. Ba dibang a that ther e
wer e many

Americ ans sea

rchingfor a

job and it would be ea sy

to replac e him. Id . ¶

58 . H e a sse rt s that th e ha

ra ssm e nt cu lmi nate d in Mar c h 200 8 whe n he wa s p la c e d o n a dmi nis tr a tiv e le ave du e to a fa lse ac cusation of misconduc t; he disputed the alleg ation and then rec eived untim ely notice that he was to attend a me eting that had alr eady taken plac e. Id . ¶ 22-24. Mr. B adibang a wa s terminated on Marc h 13, 2008. Id . ¶ 27. II. STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW A motion to dis miss pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6) cha lleng es the a de qu a c y

of a c omp la int on its fa c e , te sti ngwh e the r a pla int if f h a s p ro pe rl y

state d a c la im. Fe dera l Rule of C ivil Procedur e 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain state ment of the c la im sh ow ing that the ple a de r i s e nti tle d to re lie f. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 8 (a ). A c omp la int mus t be suff icient “to g ive a de fenda

nt fair notice of what the . . . claim is and t h e grounds upon whic h i t re s ts.” Be ll A tl. Cor

p. v . Two mb ly , 5 5 0 U
. S. 5 4 4 , 5 5 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( inte r n a l c it a ti o n s o mi tt e d ). Although a

complaint does not nee d detailed f actua l alleg ations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide3

the g ro un ds of

his e nti tle me nt t o r e lie f “r e qu ir e s mor e tha n lab e ls an d co nc lus ion s, and a fo rm ula ic
rec itation of t he elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. T h e fa ct s al l ege d “m u s t b e e n o u gh to r aise a rig ht to relief

above the speculative level.” Id
. Rule 8(a) require s an actual s howing and not just a blanket asser

tion o f a ri gh t to relief. Id. a t 55 5 n .3 . “ [A] c omp la int ne e ds some information about the c ircumstance s g iving r ise to the claims.” Aktieselsk abet Af 21. Nov. 2001 v. Fame J eans, Inc

. , 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 ( D.C. Cir. 2008) (empha sis in original). In de c idi ng a mot ion un de r Rule 12 (b )( 6) , a cou rt may c on sid e r t

he fa c ts a lle g e d in the complaint, documents attached to the c omplaint as exhi bits or i ncorpor ated by ref ere nce, a nd
matt e r s a b o u t w h ic h th e c o urt ma

y ta k e ju d ic ia l notice
. Abhe &Svoboda, Inc . v. Chao , 508 F.3d 1052, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must c ontain sufficie nt fac tual matter, acc epted as true, to state a claim for r elief that is “plausible on its face .” Twom bly , 55 0 U .S. a t 57 0. Whe n a pla int if f p le a ds fa c tua l c on te nt t

hat a llo ws the c ourt

to d ra w the re a so na

ble infere nce that the defe ndant is liable for the misconduct alleg ed, then the clai m h as facial plausibilit y . Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 193 7, 19 49 (2 00 9) . “ Th e pla us ibi lity sta nd ard is n ot a kin to a ‘proba

bility require ment,’ but it asks for more than a shee r possibilit y that a def endant ha s acte d unlawfully .” Id
.

A c ourt mus t tr e a t th e c omp la int ’s fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns a s tr ue , “ e ve n if

do ub tf ul i n fac t.” Twom bly , 550 U. S. at 555 . B ut a c ourt ne e d n ot a c c e pt a s tr

ue le g a l c on c lus ion s se t f

or th i n a complaint. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct . at 1949. “T h re ad b are rec itals of the eleme nts of a ca use of a ction, supported by

mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice .” Id . “While leg al conc lusions can provide the fr ame wo rk

of a c omp la int , the y mus t be sup po rt e d by fa c tua l alle g a tio ns . Whe n the re are we ll-4

pleade d fac tual alleg ations, a cour t s h o u ld assume their ve rac ity and then de termine whe ther they plausibly g ive rise to an e ntitlement to relief.” Id . at 1950. III . A NA LY SIS Title VI I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a n employ er f

rom discriminating on the basis of ra ce, c olor, relig ion, s ex, or national orig in in hiring de cisions, in compensation, te rm s and c on dit ion s o f e mpl oy

men t, and in c la ssi fy

inge mpl oy e e s in

a wa y that w ou ld a dv e rs e ly aff ect their status as employ ees. 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-16. Simi larly , the D.C. Hu m an R i g hts Act makes it unlawful f

or an e mploy er “ [t ]o fail or ref use to hire, or

to dischar ge, an y

individual; or oth e rw ise to d isc ri mi n a

t e a g a i n s t a ny i n d ivi du a l, w ithre sp e c t to his c omp e ns a tio n, te rm s, c on dit ion s, or privileg es of employ

ment, including promotion” based upon “the actual or perc eived: race , color, relig ion, national orig in, sex , ag e, mar ital status, pe rs o n al ap pear ance , sexual orientation, ge nder identity or expression, family

responsibilities, ge netic information, disabili ty , matriculation, or political affiliation of a

ny individual.” D.C. Code § 2-1402.11(a )(1)
. Employ ment discrimination claims under the D.C. Human Rights Act are analy zed using the same leg al framework as f ed er al employ ment discrimination claims. See M cFarland v. Ge orge W

ash. Univ. , 935 A.2d 337, 346 (D.C. 2007). “The phrase ‘terms, c onditions, o r p r iv il e g es of e mploy

ment’ evinc es a c ong ressional int e nt t o s tr ike a t th e e nti re sp e c tr um o f di sp arat e tr e a tme nt o f m e n a nd wo me n in

e mpl oy me nt, which includes r equiringpeople to wor k in a discriminatorily

hostile or abusive e nvironment .” Ha rri s v . F or k lif t Sy s. , 5 1 0 U. S
. 1 7 , 2 1 (1 9 9 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Meritor Sav. Bank , FSB v. Vinson , 4 77 U. S. 57, 64 (1986)) (interna l quotation marks omi tted). There fore , Title VI I is violated when a plaintiff de mon str a

tes t hatth e “wo rkp lac e is perm eat ed w it h d is cri mi nat ory in ti mi dat io n, ri di cul e, and ins ult ”5

and that t h i s b ehavior

is “sufficie ntly

sever e or pe rvasive to a lter the c onditions of the victim’s employ ment and cr eate an abusive workingenvironment.” Ha rri s , 510 U.S. a

t 21. To establish a prima fa cie hostile work e nvironment claim, a pla intiff must demonstrate (1) that he is a membe r of a prote cted c lass, (2) that he was subject to unwelcome ha rassment, (3) that the har assment occ urre d be c a us e of his ra c e , (4 ) that the ha

ra ssm e nt a ff

e c te d a te rm , c on dit ion , o r p ri vil e g e of e mpl oy me nt, and (5) that the employ er knew or should have known of the ha rassment, a

nd failed to a ct to preve nt it. Lester v. Natsios , 2 9 0 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 1 , 2 2 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g On c alev . S un do wne r O

ffs ho re Servs., I nc. , 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998)). In deter mining whe ther a hostile work environme nt claim is substantiated, a cour t must look at a ll th e c ir c u ms ta n c e s o f th e p la inti f

f ’ s e mp lo y me n t, s p e c if

ic a ll y f o c u s in g o ns u ch fac tors as the fre quency of the discr iminatory conduct, its sever ity , whether it was threatening and humiliating or wa s merely offe nsive, and whe ther it unrea sonably interfe red w ith the employ ee’ s work perf ormanc e. Ha rri

s , 510 U. S. at 23. Th e c on du c t must be su ff ic ie ntl y e xtre me to c on sti tut e an alter ation in the conditions of employ men t , so that Title VI Idoes not evolve into a “ g ener al civility code.” Faragher v. City of Bo ca R aton , 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998). Consequently , “mer e utt e ra nc e of an . . . e pit

he t wh ic h e ng e nd e rs of

fe ns ive fe e lin g s in an e mpl oy e e do e s n ot s uf fi c ie ntl y af fe ct t he conditions of employ ment to impli cate Title VI I .” Ha rri s , 5 1 0 U
. S. a t 2 1 ( interna l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . “ [S]impl e te a sing, of fh and c omm e nts , a

nd iso late d in c ide nts (u

nle ss extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory chang es in the terms a nd conditions of employ ment.” F a r agher , 524 U.S. at 778. Fur ther, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the a lleg ed events lea ding to the hostile wor k environment we re c onnecte d, s i n ce “discre te ac ts constituti ng dis c ri min a tio n o r r e ta liatio n c la ims
. . . ar e dif fe re nt in kin d f

ro m a ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt c la im6

that must be based on s ev er e an d p erva sive discriminatory intimi dation or insult.” Lester , 2 90 F. S u p p . 2 d at 3 3 (c i t i n g AMTRAK v. Morgan , 5 36 U. S. 1 01 ,1 15 -1 6 ( 20 02 )) . “ Wor kp la c e c on du c t is not measure d in isolation.” Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Bree den , 532 U.S. 268, 270 (2001).

For example, in Ge or

gev . Le av itt , 4 07 F .3 d 4 05 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 5) , th e D. C. C ir c uit held that statements by

three employ ees ove r a six -month period telli ng a plainti ff to “g o back where she ca me from,” separ ate a cts of y elling a nd hostili ty , and alleg ations that the plaintiff wa s not give n the ty pe of wo rk sh e de se rv e d, we re iso late d in sta nc e s th a t di d n ot r ise to t he le ve l of

se veri ty
nece ssary to find a hostile work e nvironment. Id
. at 4 1 6

- 1 7
. Si mi la r ly , in S ingh v. United States House of Repre

sentatives , 3 00 F . S up p. 2d 48 , 54 -5 7 ( D. D. C. 2 00 4) , th is C ourt fo un d th a t a plaintiff’s alleg ations that her e mploy er humiliated he r at important mee tings, scr eame d at her in one instance, told her

to “shut u p an d s i t down” in one instanc e, and w as “c onstantly hostile and hy perc ritical” did not amount to a hostile w ork environment, even though these actions may have been disre spectful a

nd unfair. The Ame nded Complaint alleg es the followingin support o f Mr. B adibang a’s hara ssment claim: (1) the ha rassment include d “re ceivingmultipl e disciplinary actions for

things for which he w as not responsible,” Am. Compl. ¶ 21; (2 ) M r. C ra i g s aid t hat there wer e many Americ ans sea

rchingfor a

j o b an d i t would be ea sy to replac e Mr. B adibang a, id . ¶ 58 ; and (3 ) i n Marc h 2008 he was place d on administrative leave due to a false a ccusation of misconduct, id . ¶ 22. I n res p o n s e to th e H o s p it a l’ s mo ti o nto d is mi s s , M r . B a d ib an g a a tt e mp ts to b o ls te r

th e A me nded Complaint vi a the submission of his own aff idavit. SeeP l
. ’s Op p ’n [ Dk t
. # 1 5 ] , E x . 1 (B ad i b an ga Af f. ). Mr . B a dib ang a

a lle g e s in

his Af fi davit that: ( 1) in M arc h o f 2 00 6, a nu rse fal se ly tol d M s. Mattia that Mr. B adibang a had be en rude , thus causing a delay in patient car e; (2) when he de lay ed7

a blood dra

w for one hour due to a st aff shortag e, supervisors issued a pre-ter mination hearingletter, and they did not do so when other wor kers similarly

delayed; (3) Ms. Mattia told Mr. Badiba ng a that she wa s not g oing to hir e any more Afric an people; (4) whe n Mr. B adibang a wa s home ill, he was
err oneously deeme d to be on vaca tion; (5) when a

doctor c omplained in September 2006 r eg arding a rude male employ ee, Ms. Mattia f alsely assumed that the complaint was about Mr. B adibang a; and (6) Ms . Mattia criticized Mr. B adibang a’s f oreig n acc ent in front of c oworke rs on more tha n one
occa sion. SeeBa dibang a Af f. ¶¶ 7-9, 13, 15, & 17. These a lleg ations are insufficiently sever e and pe rvasive to c onstitut e an hostil e wor k
e nv ir onme nt. Whil e Mr . B a dib ang a may have b e e n g e nu ine ly of fe nd e d at th e a lle g e d c omm e nts

— that he was easy to repla ce with an American, that Ms. Mattia would not hire other Afric ans, and criticism of his acc ent — these c onstitut e isolated incide nts that simpl y do not amount to a discriminatory chang e in t he ter ms and conditions of employ ment. Faragher , 524 U.S. at 778. As the Supreme Court ha s indicated, Title VI Iis not a civility code. Id .; see Ha rri

s , 510 U.S. at 21 (“‘ [M] ere utteranc e of a

n . . . epithet which eng ender s offe nsive fee lings in an e mploy ee’ does not
s u ff i ci en t l y af fe ctth e c o n d i t i o n s o f e mp l o y m en tt o i mp l i ca t e T i t l e V I I ”) (q u o t i n g Meritor , 4 77 U. S.
a t 91 ). F ur

the r, the a lle g a tio ns tha

t are unre late d to Mr . B a dib ang a ’s ra c e /e thn icit y , su c h a s h is alleg ations that he wa s dis ci p l i n ed when others we re not a nd that he wa s falsely

acc used of be ing rude, c annot support a c laim for hostile work e nvironment. S ee , e.g. , Kelley v . Billingt on , 3 70 F. Sup p. 2d 15 1, 15 7 ( D. D. C. 2 00 5) (t o s us ta in a ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt cl aim , th e pla int if f m us t sh owthat he wa s d isc ri min a te d a g a ins t b e c a u se of h is status). Be cause the Amende d Complaint fails to state a hostile wor k environment c laim, the Hospital’s motion for partial dismiss al will be g rante d and Count I Iwill be dismiss ed.8 IV . C ON CL USI ON F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , D e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n f or p a r t i a l d i s m i s sa l [Dk

t. # 13 ] wil l be g rante d and Count I I

of the Ame nded Complaint will be d i s missed. A memorializing Orde r
acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: January

20, 2010 ______________/s/____________________ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e