Mills v. Anadolu Agency NA, Inc.

TANYA ALLEGRA MILLS, Plaintiff, v. ANADOLU AGENCY NA, INC., Defendant.

No. 19-cv-3061 (EGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

November 24, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

Plaintiff Tanya Mills ("Ms. Mills") brings this action against Defendant Anadolu Agency NA, Inc. ("Anadolu") under the District of Columbia Payment and Collection of Wages Law ("DCPCWL"), DC Code § 32-1301 et. seq., arising out of the termination of her employment. Ms. Mills alleges that Anadolu has not compensated her for her unused paid leave days upon her discharge. Pending before the Court is Anadolu's motion to dismiss. Upon careful consideration of the motion, the opposition, the reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record herein, the Court GRANTS Anadolu's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12; and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ms. Mills's DCPCWL claim.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts reflect the allegations in the operative complaint, which the Court assumes are true for the purposes of deciding this motion and construes in Ms. Mills's favor. See Baird v. Gotbaum, 792 F.3d 166, 169 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Anadolu is a broadcasting company "under the ownership and control of Anadolu Ajansi Turk A.S. ("A. A. Turk"), a corporation owned and controlled by the government of Turkey." See Am. Compl., ECF No. 10 at 1 ¶ 1. Ms. Mills alleges that on "April 6, 2018, [she] entered into an employment contract with A. A. Turk by signing an offer letter to work as an Executive Producer in Turkey." Id. at 4 ¶ 8. The offer letter stated, among other things, that Ms. Mills's compensation package included "[p]aid leave - [a]nnual entitlement of 20 days plus all Turkish national and public holidays, timing subject to clearance with [Ms. Mills'] line managers." Offer Letter, Apr. 4, 2018 ("OL"), Def.'s Ex. 4, ECF No. 12-6 at 2.² In addition, the offer letter stated "[j]urisdiction - [t]his agreement issubject to Turkish employment laws." Id.

However, upon her arrival in Turkey to begin her employment, Ms. Mills states that she was told that she would need to sign "a fixed-term consultancy agreement" in order to receive her salary since she did not have a Turkish work visa. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 10 at 4 ¶ 10. She further alleges that she was told that once she received her Turkish work visa, the consultancy agreement would no longer be necessary. Id. Nevertheless, Ms. Mills indicates that she signed a new "consultancy agreement approximately every 60 days" until the end of her employment. Id. at 5 ¶ 11. Each consultancy agreement, which specified that the agreement was between A. A. Turk as the "agency" and Ms. Mills, stated in relevant parts:

The consultant is obliged to comply with the rules and regulations in the place where he tries to perform his services and, the standards of the Agency.

The AGENCY agrees to pay [sic] net per month as service fee to the CONSULTANT who will be providing services under the Joint Broadcasting Project in order to provide a world class news production to be presented to the channel.

The Consultant will never be considered as an employee of current Labor Laws in any case and at any time with this agreement. The services provided by the consultant [sic], are entirely professional and commercial, do not create any business relationship that give rise to the right to work in anyway.

This agreement is the entire agreement betweenthe parties in relation to the subject matter, invalidates and replaces all previous written or oral agreements, agreement samples, representations or proposals not contained in this agreement.

The Agency shall have the right to end the contract at any given time.

The Ankara Courts and enforcement offices shall be the exclusive authorized venues for the resolution of any matter of controversy or dispute between the parties relates there to.

This agreement consists of fourteen (14) articles, two (2) pages and two (2) copies, one for each party.

See Consultancy Serv. Procurement Agreements ("Consultancy Agreement") May 15, 2018 - May 31, 2019, Def.'s Ex. 2, ECF No. 12-4 at 2-3. Ms. Mills notes that the "offer letter never mentioned a consultancy agreement and did not contain an expiration term." See Am. Compl., ECF No. 10 at 5 ¶ 11; see generally, OL, ECF No. 12-6.

On January 31, 2019, Ms. Mills returned to the United States, where she continued to sign a new consultancy agreement with A. A. Turk every 60 days. See id. ¶¶ 11-12. In March 2019, Ms. Mills contends that "A. A. Turk assigned her to work in Anadolu's Washington D.C. bureau." Id. ¶ 12. While working in Anadolu's Washington D.C. bureau, Ms. Mills' "job title remained the same"; she "received the same salary[;] and received the same benefits." Id. Ms. Mills alleges that she was "simultaneously employed by A. A. Turk," and Anadolu. Id. ¶ 13.

Ms. Mills asserts that as of July 31, 2019, she "had accrued but unused annual leave of 20 hours." Id. ¶ 14. Further, Ms. Mills alleges that between "March, 2019 and the end of her employment, [she] worked during several Turkish holidays and she earned [four] compensatory days of leave," which "brought her leave total (at the time of termination) to 24 days." Id. at 6 ¶ 14. According to Ms. Mills, on April 18, 2019, she emailed "Kim Adams, [a] Senior Newsroom Coordinator, employed by A. A. Turk, to inquire about the remaining balance of her available paid leave." See Am. Compl., ECF No. 10 at 6 ¶ 15. Ms. Adams allegedly responded, "'You should have only used 8 annual leave days, so presumably you [sic] still have 12 Days remaining to use. Your leave balance will renew on May 15, 2019 . . . .'" Id.

Ms. Mills alleges that she was discharged by Anadolu and A. A. Turk on July 29, 2019 when she received an "email from Mehmet Ali Sevgi, who works at Anadolu's D.C. Bureau, telling her [that] A. A. Turk was not renewing her most recent Consultancy Agreement executed on June 1, 2019." Id. at 6 ¶ 16. Further, Ms. Milles asserts that Mr. Mehmet "orally instructed [her] not to return to work after that day (July 29, 2019), even though the Consultancy Agreement did not end until July 31, 2019."

According to Ms. Mills, she is owed the "full value of the accrued but unused leave ($14,555.52) plus an amount equal to three times the value of the unpaid leave as liquidated damages($43,666.56), [for] a total of $58,222.08." Id. at 7 ¶ 21. In addition, Ms. Mills claims that since she "did not receive payment of her wages for the month of July, 2019 (the gross amount of $10,916.67) until August 24, 2019, which was 17 working days after the August 1, 2019 due date . . . Anadolu must pay liquidated damages in the amount of 1.7 times the amount of the wages, which is $18,558.34." Id. ¶ 22.

B. Procedural History

On October 14, 2019, Ms. Mills filed the current action. See Compl., ECF No. 1. After Anadolu moved to dismiss the initial complaint on January 9, 2020, see Def.'s First Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, Ms. Mills filed an Amended Complaint on January 28, 2020. See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 10. Anadolu then filed its current motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 11, 2020, see Def.'s Second Mot. to Dismiss ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 12; and Ms. Mills filed her opposition brief on March 25, 2020, see Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 18. Anadolu then filed its reply brief on April 1, 2020. See Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 19. The motion is ripe and ready for the Court's adjudication.

II. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint." Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing thatthe pleader is entitled to relief," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), "in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

A complaint survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only if it "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw [a] reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint alleging facts which are "'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Though at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court generally will accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and give the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the allegations, see Browning, 292 F.3d at 242; the Court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint or legal conclusions cast in the form of factualallegations. See Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958, 963 (D.C. Cir. 2004). "Nor must [the Court] accept as true the plaintiff's factual allegations insofar as they contradict exhibits to the complaint or matters subject to judicial notice." Id. (citing Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir.2002)).

III. Analysis

Anadolu argues that Ms. Mills's action should be dismissed because she has failed to state a claim under the DCWPCL. See Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 12-1 at 12.³ DCWPCL requires, inter alia, that upon an employee's discharge, "the employer shall pay the employee's wages earned not later than the working day following such discharge." D.C. Code § 32-1303(1). However, if "an employee (not having a written contract of employment for a period in excess of 30 days) quits or resigns, the employer shall pay the employee's wages due upon the next regular payday or within 7 days from the date of...