Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Oluwarotimi Odutola v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

August 7, 2018, Decided; August 7, 2018, Filed

Case No. 18-cv-00094-RCL



Now before the Court are plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court [ECF No. 7] and defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13]. Upon consideration, plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court is DENIED. Furthermore, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Counts I and III of plaintiff's complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Counts II and IV of the complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. Background1

Plaintiff, Oluwarotimi Odutola, worked for defendant, Branch Banking and Trust Company, as a personal banker from October 17, 2015 to November 22, 2016. Am. Compl. ¶ 6. In October of 2016, plaintiff had several incidents at work. See id. ¶¶ 9-94.

First, plaintiff became concerned when his superiors attempted to convince plaintiff to violate defendant's corporate policy by leaving a branch of the bank with only one teller working. Id. ¶¶ 9-12. Plaintiff attempted to raise his concerns in a meeting with his manager the next day. [**2]  Id. ¶ 13. But the manager reprimanded plaintiff for not doing as he was told and used discriminatory language in the process. Id. ¶¶ 13-15.

Just a few days later, plaintiff had an altercation with a customer. Id. ¶¶ 27-46. The customer came into the bank and approached plaintiff's window at the teller counter, trying to cash a suspicious check. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. When plaintiff told the customer that he needed to provide verification, the customer became enraged at plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 25-32. Plaintiff asked the customer to leave the premises, further angering the customer and causing him to make serious threats to plaintiff's life. Id. ¶¶ 33-35. Plaintiff came around the teller line window to try to alert the branch manager, but the customer blocked his path. Id. ¶¶ 36-41. A coworker tried to deescalate the situation, grabbing the customer's check and ID in order to notify the authorities. Id. ¶¶ 42-43. Finally, the branch manager came out of her office; she returned the check and ID to the customer, who left the store. Id. ¶¶ 44-46.

Plaintiff was incredibly disturbed by the whole incident and the fact that the branch manager never intervened or even reported the customer. Id. ¶¶ 47-50. In [**3]  a meeting with the branch manager, he told the manager that he planned to report both the incident with the customer and the discriminatory language from the earlier meeting to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"). Id. ¶ 55. Additionally, he wished to file a grievance report with defendant's human resources department. Id. ¶ 57. The branch manager responded by making discriminatory remarks to plaintiff and threatening to terminate his employment if he reported the incident. Id. ¶¶ 55-60.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

321 F. Supp. 3d 67 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132747 **; 2018 WL 3747819



customer, allegations, retaliation, notice, removal, motion for leave, defense motion, Sur-reply, hostile work environment, plaintiff's claim, public policy, altercation, branch manager, pro se, dismissal with prejudice, violate public policy, wrongful termination, state court, reconsider, terminated, amend