Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Bd.

1

SHARON BLACKMON-MALLOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE BOARD, Defendant.

Civ. Action No. 01-2221 (EGS)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs a group of African American Capitol Police Officers, allege that they suffered racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, in violation of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”), 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., during their employment with the U.S. Capitol Police (“Defendant” or “the Department”). See Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 278.^[1]Pending before the Court are sixteen motions to dismiss claims from Plaintiffs: (1) Frank Adams (“Lieutenant Adams”), (2) Sharon Blackmon-Malloy (“Lieutenant Blackmon-Malloy”), (3) Regina Bolden-Whitaker (“Officer Bolden-Whitaker”), (4) Tyrone Brooks (“Officer Brooks”), (5) Arnold Fields (“Officer Fields”), (6) Tammie Green (“Officer Green”), (7) Ave Maria Harris (“Officer Harris”), (8) Larry Ikard (“Sergeant Ikard”), (9) Governor Latson (“Officer Latson”), (10) Kevin Matthews, Sr. (“Officer Matthews”), (11) Danny McElroy (“Officer McElroy”), (12) Luther Peterson (“Officer Peterson”), (13) Reginald Waters (“Officer Waters”), (14) Richard Webb (“Officer Webb”), (15) Frank Wilkes (“Officer Wilkes”), and (16) Kendrick Young (“Officer Young”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”); and two motions to correct the claims of Officer Brooks and Officer Latson.

Upon careful consideration of the motions, the oppositions, the replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS the two motions to correct; GRANTS Defendant's motions to dismiss the claims listed in Appendix C; DENIES Defendant's motions to dismiss the claims listed in Appendix B; and DISMISSES sua sponte Officer Waters' claim for hostile work environment, which is also listed in Appendix C, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will only allow plaintiffs listed in Appendix D to proceed in this action, and they will be permitted to proceed only as to the claims listed in that chart.

II. Background

This main case, Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Blackmon-Malloy”), No. 1-2221, began in 2001 as a proposed class action by numerous Black officers in the Department, alleging various incidents of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. See generally FAC, ECF No. 278. Several plaintiffs from Blackmon-Malloy filed additional suits against the Department with new allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and/or hostile work environment over the next several years. As relevant to the current motion to dismiss, these suits include Adams v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Adams I”), No. 4-943; Adams v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Adams II”), No. 5-491; Adams v. U.S. Capitol Police (“Adams III”), No. 6-653; Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Blackmon-Malloy II”), No. 2-1859; Bolden-Whitaker v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Bolden-Whitaker”), No. 3-2644; Fields v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Fields I”), No. 2-1346; Fields v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Fields II”), No. 3-1505; and Young v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (“Young”), No. 4-320.

The following factual background provides a brief overview of the allegations from the various suits, with additional details in the analysis sections pertaining to each Plaintiff's individual claims. The procedural background provides a brief overview of the case, focusing on the most recent procedural developments as they pertain to the current motions to dismiss. A more comprehensive procedural history can be found in this Court's 2016 opinion regarding subject matter jurisdiction. See Mem. Op. (“12(b)(1) Op.”), ECF No. 429 at 2-35.

A. Factual

1. General Environment

The Court assumes the following facts alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to be true for the purposes of deciding this motion and construes them in Plaintiffs' favor. See Baird v. Gotbaum (“Baird II”), 792 F.3d 166, 169 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2015). For years, Black officers were “subjected to racist slurs, insults, and threats” throughout the Department. FAC, ECF No. 278 ¶ 17. White officers often referred to African Americans-both fellow officers and members of the public-as “Huks” and “gangsters.” Id. ¶ 18. They called the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department the “ghetto police.” Id. And they referred to other officers, who were friendly with African American officers, as “Huk Lovers,” “Friends of Gangsters,” or “FOGs.” Id. ¶ 20.

Some units in the Department were worse than others. For example, officers from the K-9 Unit reportedly used the N-word “freely.” Id. ¶ 21. And while then-Officer Ikard worked there, the Unit had two black-colored dogs. Id. ¶ 19. One of which, was named “Ike,” the same as then-Officer Ikard's nickname, and the other of which was named “Huk.” Id. “[W]hite Officers of the K-9 unit” would shout “Ike” at the dog “to demean and humiliate [then-]Officer Ikard.” Id. And the Unit “backed down” from the name “Huk” “in response to outrage from Black Officers.” Id.

In another instance in 2000, General Counsel John Caulfield (“Mr. Caulfield”), who gave “advice on discipline and promotions in the department,” used the N-word toward a Virginia cab driver. Id. ¶ 24. Despite protests from Black officers, Mr. Caulfield “returned to work without incident.” Id. The fact that these slurs were “commonly employed by the white Officers of the U.S. Capitol Police,” affected many of the Black officers in the Department. Id. ¶ 25; FAC-Ex. 1, ECF No. 278-1 (listing over 100 “Black Officers whose work environments were affected”).

In addition to the offensive language, several racist actions were perpetuated against Black officers, including use of a “hangman's noose,” “a swastika,” “death threats,” “unprovoked traffic stops of Black Officers by white Officers,” and “bear hunting” where Black officers were subjected to false write-ups. Id. ¶ 26. These actions “cast a pall of fear and intimidation over other Black Officers who were aware of what had occurred.” Id.; FAC-Ex. 2, ECF No. 278-2 (listing over 50 “Black Officers who were aware of what had occurred”).

2. Promotions

One particular area of concern was the promotion of officers throughout the Department. As of February 2001, white officers made up 67% of the force but 84% of the high-ranking officers. Id. ¶ 44. Black officers made up 29% of the force but only 13% of the high-ranking officers. Id. As of 2002, “no Black Officer on the U.S. Capitol was in the department's developmental pool for high-ranking Officers.” Id. ¶ 50.

Furthermore, the comments of several Department officials led officers to question the fairness of the promotion process. For example, a high-ranking official of the Department informed a group of managers that he “wanted to control the Officers who were promoted, so some Officers applying for promotions would always miss the required score by a few points.” Id. ¶ 49. Additionally, former Chief Gary Abrecht stated that “Blacks can't compete” and “Blacks can't take tests.” Id. ¶ 57.

Every two years, the Department administers examinations for officers seeking promotion to Sergeant and Lieutenant. See Class Action Compl., Young v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., No. 4-320 (“Young Compl.”), ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.^[2]In the 2000 promotion process, then-Sergeant Blackmon-Malloy sought a promotion to Lieutenant. Id. ¶ 47. She received an on-site score of 75, but her score was later recorded and posted as a 69, which “impacted her overall score and resulted in her not being promoted.” Id. When then-Sergeant Blackmon-Malloy inquired about the change, she was told that “there was an error in the calculation of her on-site score.” Id. ¶ 48.

Several officers complained of unfairness in the 2002 promotion process. For the 2002-2004 period, the Sergeant's and Lieutenant's examinations had two parts: a written exam and a simulation exercise. Young Compl. ¶ 11.

For the Sergeant's exam, the simulation exercise was administered to most candidates on May 10, 2003. Id. ¶¶ 13, 20. However, Chief Terrance Gainer (“Chief Gainer”) allowed two white candidates and several other candidates to take the simulation exercise on a later date. Id. ¶¶ 16, 20. The two white candidates were originally scheduled to take the exam on May 15, 2003, five days after the regularly scheduled test. Id. ¶ 16. But after several officers complained about potential unfairness, Chief Gainer cancelled the May 15 exam, developed a new exam, and then administered that exam to several candidates in September 2003. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. One white officer, who was permitted to take the exam on the later date, was promoted to Sergeant in February 2004. Id. ¶ 21.

For the Lieutenant's exam, one white sergeant was allowed to take both portions of the exam in Fall 2003, several months after the regularly scheduled exam dates. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14, 28. This sergeant was then promoted to Lieutenant based on her score. Id. ¶ 32. Furthermore, during this exam process, then-Sergeant Blackmon-Malloy received a score of 0.5 on a portion of the exam, which caused her to be ranked 17 out of 25 sergeants. Id. ¶ 36. The score was “surprising” since she received the “highest score” on another part of her exam and was categorized within the range of “Outstanding” in that portion of the exam. Id. Then-Sergeant Blackmon-Malloy was never given “individualized feedback about her performance on the exam.” Id.

Beyond contentions with the general promotion process, several Black officers recount incidents where they were passed over for specific positions. For example, Lieutenant Adams was denied promotion to the rank of Captain. See Compl Adams v. U.S. Capitol...