Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 11-29-2001
Case Style: Tanya L. Baker v. District of Columbia
Case Number: 99-CV-1504
Judge: Wagner
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Plaintiff's Attorney: A. Palmer Ifill was on the brief for appellant.
Defendant's Attorney: Robert R. Rigsby, Corporation Counsel, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Lutz Alexander Prager, Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Mary T. Connelly, Assistant Corporation Counsel, were on the brief for appellee.
Description: Tanya L. Baker filed a complaint in Superior Court against appellee, District of Columbia, for mental distress, slander and defamation of character. Baker, an employee with the District’s Department of Corrections (DOC), alleged in the complaint that Ronald McClain, then Chief of DOC’s Office of Policies and Procedures, wrote a memorandum to the Director of the agency stating that Baker had engaged in an extramarital affair with John Thomas, then Executive Director of the Department, and subsequently a promotion request was sent forward for her. Baker asserted that reasonable inquiry by the District’s employees would have shown that the information was not true. The District moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that this court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint concerned a personnel matter governed by the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (CMPA), and Baker had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the CMPA before filing suit. The confidential memo from McClain to the Director, a copy of which Baker attached as an exhibit to her opposition to the motion to dismiss, stated that McClain was submitting an emergency complaint “[i]n accordance with Department Order 3310.4C, ‘Sexual Harassment of Employees.’” McClain advised the Director of allegations that the DOC’s Executive Deputy Director, John H. Thomas, was engaging in sexual misconduct with two subordinates, one of whom was Baker, who had admitted the affair. The memorandum further states in pertinent part:
Section VII(c) of Department Order 3310.4C, requires that each
employee refrain from creating an ‘offensive work environment.’
I contend that this type of relationship is unprofessional and
immoral. Mr. Thomas’s extramarital affair is common
knowledge among agency employees and is offensive in the work
environment. Mr. Thomas’s behavior not only compromises the
integrity of the Executive Deputy Director, but it also
compromises the integrity of your administration and the agency.
This is exactly the kind of behavior that has brought the agency
so much adverse publicity and scrutiny.
You have been severe in your treatment and punishment of
those accused of and found guilty of sexual misconduct, I hope
the same standards apply equally to each individual in the
agency.
The trial court granted the District’s motion to dismiss. Baker argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion because the defamatory memorandum did not arise out of a grievance proceeding, adverse action, or personnel evaluation directly involving her, and therefore the CMPA does not apply.
* * *
Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown
Defendant's Experts: Unknown
Comments: Reported by Kent Morlan