What happened
A Washington, D.C., federal judge allowed pro se plaintiff Samuel Shanks to expand his race discrimination suit against the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, granting him leave to add new race-bias allegations and a Section 1981 claim while rejecting several other proposed claims the court said "would not withstand a motion to dismiss."
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled Tuesday that Shanks may pursue added factual allegations supporting his Title VII and D.C. Human Rights Act race discrimination theories, along with a new Section 1981 disparate-treatment claim against the union, BAC President Timothy Driscoll and BAC Executive Director Candice Dubberly. Shanks was given until July 31, 2026, to file an amended complaint limited to those allowed amendments.
Shanks, who worked in BAC's accounting department for more than 20 years, alleges the union fired him in October 2021 after he did not comply with its COVID-19 vaccination requirement by the deadline BAC set. According to the opinion, he alleges BAC rolled out the policy in a discriminatory way, including by giving Black employees less advance notice than white employees and denying Black employees access to vaccine information tied to a White House and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services partnership.
The case returned to the district court after the D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of Shanks' retaliation, disability discrimination, sexual orientation and hostile work environment claims but reversed dismissal of his race discrimination claims. After remand, Shanks sought to amend his pleading to add factual allegations, a Section 1981 race discrimination claim, individual defendants, and several additional claims, including retaliation, sex and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, fraud or concealment, emotional distress torts and an NLRA retaliation theory.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly allowed the Section 1981 claim to proceed against BAC and the two individual officials because the defendants did not oppose that amendment and because Section 1981 may allow individual liability for supervisors personally involved in discriminatory conduct. But she found the proposed Title VII claims against Driscoll and Dubberly futile, reasoning that only BAC may be held liable on the Title VII theory.
The judge also refused to let Shanks reassert retaliation, sex and disability discrimination, and hostile work environment claims, finding they were barred after earlier dismissal and appellate affirmance. She rejected the proposed fraud or concealment theory because Shanks did not plausibly allege that the defendants intentionally blocked him from accessing substantially similar vaccine information elsewhere or that their actions caused damages.
The court likewise denied leave to add negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Although Shanks alleged emotional distress tied to his termination and the handling of his belongings, the opinion said his long tenure at BAC did not transform an arm's-length employment relationship into the special relationship required for negligent infliction under D.C. law, and that the alleged conduct did not meet the demanding standard for intentional infliction.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly also rejected Shanks' proposed NLRA retaliation claim, concluding that unfair labor practice matters generally fall within the National Labor Relations Board's exclusive primary jurisdiction and that the proposed claim was not a contractual claim over which a federal court could exercise concurrent jurisdiction. Any amendments beyond the permitted race-discrimination allegations and Section 1981 claim will be stricken, the court said.