Law Firm Security Guard's Claim For Injuries Barred by Exclusive Remedy Rule
Noting initially that the pleadings of a party proceeding pro se must be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, a federal district court in Washington, D.C., nevertheless dismissed a complaint filed against a prominent law firm by a security officer formerly employed by the firm alleging Title VII discrimination, wrongful termination, and “pain and suffering” injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff [Harley v. Covington & Burling, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85820 (D. D.C., May 15, 2020)]. The court held, in relevant part, that in as much as plaintiff’s alleged injuries arose out of a workplace confrontation between the plaintiff and his supervisor — both of whom were fired for the physical nature of the confrontation — the tort claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”).
Background
Plaintiff alleged that he “was physically assaulted” by his direct supervisor in March 2018 as plaintiff was completing a security check in the Covington & Burling parking deck. As a result of the physical confrontation, plaintiff alleged he suffered injuries to his neck, ankle and body.
Three months prior to the “physical attack,” the plaintiff had complained to the law firm’s HR manager that he was being harassed and intimidated with threats of termination by his supervisor. The plaintiff, who is African American (the supervisor was a Caucasian), contended that the supervisor had also made several racial remarks. Subsequently, the plaintiff met with a manager at the law firm, who told the plaintiff that several employees had reported that the plaintiff was “spreading the rumor” that the supervisor was a racist.
The March 2018 confrontation started when the supervisor confronted the plaintiff in the parking garage and asked why the plaintiff was telling others that he was a racist. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, he denied the allegation. Then, according to the plaintiff’s allegations, the supervisor “cussed and continually” called the plaintiff a liar and said the plaintiff’s time with the law firm was short. The plaintiff alleged that the supervisor threw a punch at him and grabbed him around the neck in an attempt to wrestle him to the ground. Plaintiff then went upstairs to the firm and called the Metropolitan Police Department. Both the supervisor and the plaintiff were terminated shortly thereafter.
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
As to the plaintiff’s allegations that he should receive $3.5 million for pain and suffering resulting from the physical assault, the district court said the claim was clearly barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the WCA. The court added that only if Covington & Burling intended to harm the plaintiff could he avoid the exclusivity defense. There were no such allegations that the firm had so intentionally acted.
Dismissal Without Prejudice
In as much as the plaintiff’s alleged injuries occurred at his employer’s parking garage in the District of Columbia while he “was on [his] last patrol of the morning,” the plaintiff’s remedy fell exclusively under the WCA, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the claim and, therefore, dismissed it without prejudice.