Bynum v. District of Columbia

Bynum v. District of Columbia

Opinion

 [*124]  MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Cemone Antenette Bynum ("Ms. Bynum"), an African-American woman  [*125]  and employee of the District of Columbia's Department of Behavioral Health ("DBH"), brings this lawsuit against the District of Columbia (the "District") and DBH under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., claiming that she was harassed and retaliated against for reporting her male colleague's behavior. Ms. Bynum also alleges that DBH unlawfully refused to accommodate her disabilities by denying her requests to transfer to an appropriate program [**2]  area.

Pending before the Court are Ms. Bynum's objections to Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather's Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), which recommends that this Court dismiss without prejudice Counts II and IV of the First Amended Complaint. See R & R, ECF No. 20 at 13.¹ Raising no objections to the R & R, the District asks this Court to adopt the R & R in its entirety. Upon careful consideration of the R & R, Ms. Bynum's objections, the District's response, and the relevant law, the Court concludes that Ms. Bynum sufficiently alleges a retaliation claim under Title VII (Count II), and Ms. Bynum plausibly states a hostile work environment claim under Title VII (Count IV). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS IN PART and REJECTS IN PART the R & R, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the District's Partial Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ms. Bynum's retaliation claim under the ADA. Because DBH is a non sui juris entity that lacks the capacity to sue or be sued, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Ms. Bynum's claims against DBH.

I. Background

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.