A federal judge granted Georgetown’s motions to dismiss all claims against the university, including a claim that Georgetown aided Aramark’s alleged violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA), on Sept. 21. Several discrimination and retaliation claims against Aramark will continue to move forward.
The lawsuit was filed by Ahki Fields, a former Aramark employee at Georgetown from August 2023 to January 2025, against Aramark and Georgetown University. Aramark is Georgetown’s dining provider and is one of the providers up for the university’s dining contract once the current one expires in 2027.
In his amended complaint, Fields alleged that Aramark subjected him to discrimination based on his disability, race, and sex. Fields also alleged that Aramark had wrongfully terminated him three times during his employment.
In the past year, Aramark has faced criticism for alleged labor and ethical violations nationwide and on campus, with Georgetown employees reporting strenuous and unsanitary working conditions. Additionally, the company has faced lawsuits over its wages for incarcerated workers and criticism over its continual ties to Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities.
The case also implicated UNITE HERE Local 23, the union representing Aramark employees, for breaching its duty to provide fair representation during grievance hearings after Fields filed grievances. Fields alleged that Georgetown aided in the violation of DCHRA by ratifying Aramark’s disciplinary conduct against him, and “ignoring the unsafe working conditions at the barista station for almost a year.”
Fields also cited Georgetown University’s Just Employment Policy (JEP), arguing that it commits the university to a “heightened duty of care” toward workers. The lawsuit comes amid increased labor organizing on campus, just weeks after the Georgetown Coalition for Workers’ Rights filed a petition calling for the university to amend its JEP to increase protections for its workers and increase wages.
In his memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras wrote that Fields failed to sufficiently allege that Georgetown had aided and abetted Aramark’s discrimination and retaliation, as he did not show that he had made Georgetown aware of any “alleged discrimination, retaliation, or hostile work environment.”
“His pleading lacks any reasonable inference that Georgetown sought to have him terminated or was involved in any other adverse actions because of his protected statuses or in response to any protected activity, which defeats his claims,” Contreras wrote.
In addition, Contreras dismissed Fields’ negligent supervision and retention claim against Georgetown because Fields “has not plausibly alleged that Georgetown is Aramark’s employer.” A negligent supervision and retention claim generally argues that an employer failed to exercise reasonable care in supervising or retaining an employee.
While Contreras dismissed some of Fields’ claims against Aramark, he granted several of Fields’ claims against Aramark to proceed. These include claims about the company’s alleged preferential treatment of Hispanic and female workers and sex discrimination against Fields. The court also allowed Fields’ claims of retaliation after he filed complaints about the company’s treatment to proceed.
The court also granted Fields a motion to file a surreply, meaning he can file another motion.
