Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICK DADLANI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
BRIGGITTA HARDIN,

Civil Action No. 11-2052 (RBW)

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

NATURE OF ACTION
1.

Plaintiff Briggitta Hardin (Plaintiff or Ms. Hardin) brings this action against

her former employer, Red Line DC, LLC (Redline) and Mick Dadlani, owner and manager of
Redline bar, lounge, and restaurant (Defendants), for unlawful discrimination on the basis of
her race in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981, et seq.,
as amended, (Section 1981) and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, DC Code 21401.01 (DCHRA).
2.

Ms. Hardin, an African-American woman and experienced bartender, was hired in

late fall 2010 to fill a much-needed bartender position at Redline, a Washington D.C. bar,
lounge, and restaurant. Upon discovering that his staff had hired an African-American bartender,
Defendant Mick Dadlani, owner and manager of Redline, appeared disgusted and Ms. Hardin
was fired on the spot.
3.

Defendants discriminatory denial of employment to Ms. Hardin was part of a

broader scheme of discriminatory exclusion perpetrated by Redline and Defendant Dadlani. In

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 11

pursuit of Defendants vision of Redline as maintaining a white, homogeneous customer base,

Redline and Dadlani implemented discriminatory policies that excluded African Americans from
working in visible positions and denied African-American customers equal access to the
establishment. Through their discriminatory practices, Defendants ensured that its bartenders
and servers were overwhelmingly white. Defendants decision to deny employment to Ms.
Hardin is a reflection of these discriminatory practices.
4.

On the basis of the violations asserted herein, Ms. Hardin seeks compensatory and

punitive damages and other relief to redress the injuries she suffered as a result of Defendants
unlawful discrimination.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 28

U.S.C. 1343(a)(4), and 28 U.S.C. 1367.

6.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial

portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Columbia
and because at all relevant times Defendants Redline and Dadlani were doing business in the
District of Columbia.
PARTIES
7.

Plaintiff Briggitta Hardin is an African-American resident of Maryland. Ms.

Hardin was working toward a degree in Communications from Howard University, and sought a
second part-time job at Redline to help finance her education. Ms. Hardin also worked as a
bartender at Bar Louie, a restaurant and lounge located across the street from Redline. At the
time of her employment with Redline, Ms. Hardin already possessed nearly four years of

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 11

experience in serving and bartending. She was employed with Redline from late November
2010 until early December 2010.
8.

Defendant Red Line DC, LLC is a District of Columbia corporation registered to

do business in the District of Columbia. Red Line DC, LLC owns and/or operates the Redline
bar, lounge and restaurant located at 707 G St. NW in Washington, D.C.
9.

Defendant Mick Dadlani is the primary owner and operational manager of the

Redline bar, lounge, and restaurant located at 707 G St. NW in Washington, D.C. At all relevant
times, Defendant Dadlani was responsible for day-to-day operations and management decisions
regarding Redline, including the retention, hiring and/or termination of employees. Defendant
Dadlani is the registered agent of Red Line DC, LLC.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10.

When Briggitta Hardin sought a second part-time job to help finance her

education at Howard University, she brought to the table a wealth of experience as a server and
bartender in Washington, D.C. At the time she learned of available bartending opportunities at
Redline, Ms. Hardin already possessed nearly four years of bartending experience, including
experience working in the busy Chinatown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. where Redline
is located. Indeed, at the time Ms. Hardin applied for a position at Redline, she was already
bartending at Bar Louie, a restaurant and lounge located across the street from Redline, that
provided her with the type of high-volume sales experience and exposure to a high-pressure
atmosphere that made her an asset. Ms. Hardin also brought experience transitioning a new bar
into a successful enterprise, as she had worked at Bar Louie since it opened its doors.
11.

In November 2010, Ms. Hardin learned that a new restaurant and bar was opening

across the street from Bar Louie and was seeking to fill vacant bartender positions. Ms. Hardin

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 11

understood that Redline was looking to open for business in the coming weeks and had a
pressing need to hire experienced employees in order to open as scheduled. Located just steps
from the Verizon Center, Redline was posed to be a major player in the Chinatown nightlife.
12.

Excited at the opportunity to work at an up-and-coming establishment like

Redline, Ms. Hardin submitted an application. Shortly after completing her application, Ms.
Hardin interviewed with several Redline employees. Within days, Ms. Hardin was offered a
bartending position by one of the interviewers. Ms. Hardin accepted the position.
13.

Shortly after accepting the job offer, Ms. Hardin completed several hours of

training as a Redline employee. The training was conducted by two Redline bartenders.
14.

On December 2, 2010, Ms. Hardin arrived at Redline to assist in preparing the

venue for its Grand Opening and work her scheduled shift.
15.

Upon entering the restaurant, she encountered Redline owner/manager Mick

Dadlani. Ms. Hardin had not met Dadlani up to that point, as her hiring and training had been
carried out by other Redline staff. Ms. Hardin introduced herself and extended her hand to greet
Dadlani, but Dadlani refused to touch her hand. Instead, Dadlani looked Ms. Hardin up and
down with visible disgust and walked away, appearing angered by her presence. Despite being
taken aback by the incident, Ms. Hardin proceeded to her work station at the bar where she
prepared and cut fruit for drink garnishes.
16.

Within the hour, a Redline staff member approached Ms. Hardin and coldly

informed her that she was fired. Despite being short-staffed and needing all available employees
to assist in preparing for the restaurants Grand Opening, Ms. Hardin was abruptly terminated
following her encounter with Dadlani and was advised to leave. Ms. Hardins efforts to retain

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 11

her position at Redline were ignored. Upon information and belief, the Redline staff member
was following the direct instructions of Dadlani.
17.

Employees at the time expressed their dismay at Ms. Hardins firing, in part

because she was well-qualified for the position and also because the restaurant remained shortstaffed for several weeks after Ms. Hardins termination.
18.

At all times relevant to the events described above, employees of Redline were

acting within the scope of their employment as employees, agents, and/or representatives of
Defendants. The discriminatory practices described above were carried out: (a) at the direction
of and with the consent, encouragement, knowledge, and ratification of Defendants; (b) under
Defendants authority, control, and supervision; and/or (c) within the scope of the employees
employment.
19.

Ms. Hardin was singled out for termination, rescission of her employment offer,

or other denial of employment because of her race. She was both the only African American
present at the Grand Opening and the only bartender or server terminated that day. Upon
information and belief, Defendants replaced Ms. Hardin with a white employee.
20.

Employees who witnessed these events immediately recognized that Defendants

denial of employment to Ms. Hardin was on the basis of her race, and this fact was discussed
among the staff.
21.

So disgusted by Defendants discriminatory practices, several Redline employees

quit their lucrative employment at Redline because they could not stomach the discrimination by
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 6 of 11

22.

Ms. Hardins discriminatory termination reflects Redlines and Mr. Dadlanis

discriminatory policies and practices designed to establish Redline as a predominantly Caucasian

venue.
23.

As a result of Defendants discriminatory policies, the bartenders and servers

Redline and Dadlani retained to work at Redline were white.

24.

Redline employees recognized that African-American bartenders and/or servers

like Ms. Hardin were denied employment because of their race.

25.

Mr. Dadlani indicated to Redline employees that he did not want to hire African-

American bartenders or servers because they did not have the look he sought to project for
Redline. Instead, Dadlani indicated his desire to employ a young, white, attractive staff to
promote his vision of Redline as a white establishment.
26.

When Redline posted an advertisement for an open hiring call on Craigslist,

scores of applicants responded, most of whom were African-American. A former employee who
was present reports that Dadlani was furious at the race of the candidates. Upon information and
belief, Dadlani chose not to hire at all from the open call for applicants.
27.

After Ms. Hardin was unceremoniously deprived of employment due to her race,

Dadlani disallowed managers at Redline from hiring employees and insisted on seeing all
candidates before they were hired to prevent the hiring of another African-American employee
such as Ms. Hardin. Dadlani refused to hire another well-qualified African-American woman
who had much-needed experience as the head trainer at another restaurant and bar.
28.

When Dadlani did hire non-white employees, he ensured that they were relegated

to unseen positions in the establishment and subjected them to humiliating working conditions.
Upon information and belief, Dadlani prohibited his mostly Hispanic kitchen crew from leaving

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 7 of 11

the kitchen, lest they be visible on the floor to patrons and disturb the homogenous image of
Redline that he had crafted. As a result, Hispanic kitchen workers were forced to cower
uncomfortably as they sought to use restroom facilities unnoticed by patrons or to endure
physical discomfort as they refrained from utilizing the facilities. At least one kitchen employee
was fired by Redline because he came out of the kitchen and could be seen by Redline patrons.
29.

Redline and Dadlani enforced its policies of preferring white employees by

unlawfully denying employment to qualified African Americans, including Ms. Hardin.

30.

Redline and Dadlani also engaged in other discriminatory practices to perpetuate

this vision of a white Redline. One such practice included closing down the bar early when
Dadlani determined that too many of the customers in the establishment were African-American.
Former Redline employees report that on a night in May 2011 during the NBA Playoffs, Dadlani
closed the bar one hour earlier than the standard last call. Disgusted by the largely AfricanAmerican crowd that had assembled to watch the game, Dadlani called last call despite the
objections of some Redline employees that the restaurant was making a lot of money from the
crowd of patrons. Dadlani said that he wanted to get them out and make sure they had a
horrible time so that they would not return. The former employees were uniform in their
understanding that by them, Dadlani was referring to the African-American patrons in Redline.
31.

At other times, Dadlani and Redline employed the use of a fictitious guest list to

discourage and deny entry to African-American patrons altogether. Former employees report
that Dadlani instructed Redline doormen to use the fictitious list when African Americans
attempted entry into the establishment. Dadlani affirmed his open hostility toward AfricanAmerican patrons by making comments celebrating the success of the door list, evidenced by
Dadlanis approving proclamation that there were only two of them in the restaurant during

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 8 of 11

another busy evening. As he counted, he pointed at each of the two African-American patrons,
making clear that them referred to African Americans.
32.

Redline employees witnessed Defendants discriminatory conduct. Dadlanis

treatment of Ms. Hardin, as well as other African Americans he encountered, was observed by
other employees and reported among the staff.
33.

Defendants discriminatory conduct contributed to several employees decisions

to quit their positions at Redline.

INJURY TO PLAINTIFF
34.

As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Ms. Hardin has suffered, and

in the future will continue to suffer, irreparable loss and injury, including but not limited to,
humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and the deprivation of her rights to
equal employment opportunities. Ms. Hardin also suffered economic loss in the form of work
she performed at Redline prior to her termination for which she was not compensated, and
money expended to comply with Redlines rules regarding bartender attire.
35.

Through Defendant Dadlanis own actions and the actions of Defendants

employees, agents, and/or representatives described above, Defendants acted intentionally,

maliciously, oppressively, and with willful, callous, wanton, and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs
rights.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
36.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 35 above.

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 9 of 11

37.

As described above, Defendants discharge of and/or refusal to hire or other

denial of employment to Ms. Hardin because of her race is in violation of Section 1981 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1981, et seq.
38.

Through their discriminatory conduct, Defendants deprived Ms. Hardin of her

right to make and enforce contracts on the same terms as enjoyed by white persons, in violation
of 42 U.S.C. 1981.
COUNT II
Discrimination under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act
39.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 35 above.

40.

As described above, Defendants termination of and denial of employment to Ms.

Hardin because of her race is in violation of D.C. Code 2-1402.11.

41.

Through their discriminatory conduct, Defendants discharged and/or refused to

hire Ms. Hardin, and deprived Ms. Hardin of equal employment opportunities because of her
race, in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
42.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant her the following relief:
a)

enter a declaratory judgment finding that the foregoing actions of

Defendants violate 42 U.S.C. 1981, et seq. and D.C. Code 2-1401.01, et seq.;
b)

enter a permanent injunction directing Defendants to take all affirmative

steps necessary to remedy the effects of the illegal, discriminatory conduct described
herein and to prevent similar occurrences in the future;

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 10 of 11

c)

award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury

that would fully compensate Plaintiff for the economic loss, humiliation, embarrassment,
and mental and emotional distress caused by the conduct of Defendants alleged herein;
d)

award punitive damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by

the jury that would punish Defendants for their willful, wanton, and reckless conduct
alleged herein and that would effectively deter Defendants from engaging in similar
conduct in the future;
e)

award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action;

f)

order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

and

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff requests trial by jury as to all issues in this case.

Dated: October 9, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Megan Cacace_____________
John P. Relman (D.C. Bar No. 405500)
Jennifer I. Klar (D.C. Bar No. 479629)
Megan Cacace (D.C. Bar No. 981553)
Jia Cobb (D.C. Bar No. 503340)
RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC
1225 19th Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
T: (202) 728-1888
F: (202) 728-0848
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

10

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 28 Filed 10/09/12 Page 11 of 11

/s/ Emily Read_____________

Emily Read (D.C. Bar No. 492773)
WASHINGTON LAWYERS
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND
URBAN AFFAIRS
11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
T: (202) 319-1000
F: (202) 319-1010
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

11