Conklin v. McDonough

1

QUINN CONKLIN, Plaintiff, v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-2010

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

April 22, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Quinn Conklin (“Conklin”) filed an amended complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendant Denis McDonough (“McDonough”), the current Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs, alleging two counts-a hostile work environment claim based on gender discrimination and a retaliation claim, both brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. (“Title VII”). (ECF No. 29). Pending before the Court is McDonough's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) as to both claims. (ECF No 45). For the following reasons, McDonough's Motion is granted in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At all relevant times, Conklin was employed as a pharmacy technician at the VA Butler Healthcare System (“Butler VA”) in Butler, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 1-2); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 1-2); (ECF No. 29, ¶ 8). Conklin began working with William Dalmagro (“Dahnagro”), a pharmacist, in the Butler VA pharmacy in 2002. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 6); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 6). The two worked together for approximately eighteen years. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 6, 9); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 6, 9).

The only time that Dalmagro was Conklin's supervisor was in 2016. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 10); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 10); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 51); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 51).

Dalmagro oversaw pharmacy procurement and his position particularly “involved costcontainment issues and keeping prices low.” (ECF No. 47, ¶ 11); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 11). He took this responsibility very seriously and is described as a “micromanager” when it came to these duties. (ECF No. 48-1, p. 18); (ECF No. 47, ¶ 165); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 165). As a result of his intensity, Dalmagro occasionally yelled at pharmacy staff, including Conklin, related to their job performance. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 146, 148, 157-58, 169-72); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 146, 148, 157-58, 169-72); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 16); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 16); (ECF No. 48-4, pp. 8, 10); (ECF No. 61-2, pp. 7-8, 12).

Throughout her tenure, Conklin was involved with procurement and ordering for the pharmacy, which put her and Dalmagro in weekly, if not daily, contact. (ECF No. 48-1, p. 15); (ECF No. 61-1, p. 6); (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 8, 57); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 8, 57); (ECF No. 57, p. 12); (ECF No. 61 -4, pp. 12-13). This was especially evident during her time as the lead pharmacy technician, where she was in charge of all ordering, subject to Dalmagro's oversight. (ECF No. 61-8, p. 5); (ECF No. 48-1, pp. 14-15).

The interaction between Dalmagro and Conklin that gave rise to this suit-what the parties refer to as the “big girl” incident-occurred on June 28, 2019. (ECF No. 60, ¶ 21); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 21). Conklin was tasked with placing an order for trach brushes for a patient. (ECF No. 48-3, p. 90); (ECF No. 48-4, p. 9); (ECF No. 61-2, p. 9). To place the order, she needed to know which brush size was needed, which was not listed on the request for the order. (ECF No. 48-3, p. 90); (ECF No. 48-4, p. 9); (ECF No. 61-2, p. 9). Conklin brought the order to Dalmagro asking what size was needed. (ECF No. 48-3, p. 90). Dalmagro became frustrated and told her different ways to investigate on her own to figure out which size brush to order. (Id.). Conklin responded that she did not know how to do this, which prompted Dalmagro to tell her that she “was a big girl” and either “to take care of it” or “figure it out.” (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 20-22); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 20-22); (ECF No. 48-3, p. 90).

Conklin reported this interaction to Nick Curcio (“Curcio”), the facility harassment prevention program coordinator and Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) investigator in July 2019. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 15); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 15); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 21); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 21). Curcio then conducted a fact-finding investigation and concluded in his August 2, 2019, report that “there is sufficient eyewitness testimony to conclude that Mr. Dalmagro did in fact harass Ms. Conklin on 6/28/19 and has done so on other occasions.” (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 16, 24); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 16, 24); (ECF No. 60, ¶¶ 22-23); (ECF No. 63, ¶¶ 22-23). As a result, Dalmagro received professional counseling by Nicole Fleeger (“Fleeger”), the chief of pharmacy at the time, in the presence of a union representative. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 26, 132); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 26, 132); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 26); (ECF No. 63,¶26).

In August 2019, Conklin applied for an inventory management specialist position in the logistics department of the Butler VA. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 29-30); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 29-30); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 36); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 36). On August 12, 2019, Conklin contacted the Department of Veteran Affairs Office of Resolution Management (“ORM”) complaining that Dalmagro had subjected her to gender-based harassment from July 1, 2019, onwards. (ECF No. 60, ¶ 33); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 33). Fifteen days later, Conklin learned that she was not selected for the position, and it was instead given to a man working in the logistics department who was given veteran's preference. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 29-30); (ECF No. 58 ¶¶ 29-30); (ECF No. 60, ¶¶ 34, 38-39); (ECF No. 63, ¶¶ 34, 38-39). Conklin then filed a formal EEO complaint related to this non-selection on December 6, 2019. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 13); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 13); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 40); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 40).

In February 2020, Dalmagro was transferred to a different facility and after this, Conklin no longer worked with him face-to-face. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 9); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 9). However, the two continued to interact due to their respective procurement duties. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 9); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 9); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 43); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 43). Throughout 2020 and 2021, Conklin applied for other open positions in the Butler VA but did not receive an offer on any of them. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 33-53); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 33-53). Conklin only expressed her desire to transfer from the pharmacy to the EEO officer, not to anyone directly involved in the hiring process. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 174-177); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 174-177).

Conklin filed a second formal complaint on January 10, 2022, alleging she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of an incident that occurred on September 16, 2021, where Conklin alleged that Dalmagro threated to “ding” her and write her up. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 66); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 66); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 48); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 48). No disciplinary action against Conklin followed. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 69, 71-72, 76); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 69, 71-72, 76).

Four months after Conklin filed her second EEO complaint, she applied for, was selected, and accepted the role of clinical pharmacy technician, a lower-graded position, in May 2022. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 77-78, 90-92); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 77-78, 90-92); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 54); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 54). Soon after, she contacted an EEO counselor and subsequently filed a formal complaint of discrimination because of her change to a lower grade. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 81-83); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 81-83). Her complaint was ultimately dismissed for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 86); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 86).

Conklin continued to perform procurement duties as a clinical pharmacy technician five to six times per month, on average. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 98); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 98). Although she was not a lead procurement employee at this time, she was one of few individuals that could purchase for the pharmacy. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 101); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 101). Dalmagro reviewed all orders placed, which led him and Conklin to have continued interactions, though more limited in frequency and only electronically. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 96); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 96); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 64); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 64).

In early 2023, Conklin applied to a wide variety of open positions with the Butler VA. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 110-131); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 110-131). She had varying degrees of success with her pursuits, where she was interviewed and offered the position for some and rejected for others. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 110-131); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 110-131). Ultimately, Conklin applied, was selected for, and accepted a fiscal accounting technician position at the Butler VA. (ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 10608); (ECF No. 58, ¶¶ 106-08); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 68); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 68). This position was a lower grade than her role as a clinical pharmacy technician. (ECF No. 47, ¶ 109); (ECF No. 58, ¶ 109); (ECF No. 60, ¶ 68); (ECF No. 63, ¶ 68).

On December 28, 2020, Conklin commenced this action against McDonough alleging claims for a hostile work environment based on gender discrimination and retaliation, both pursuant to Title VII. (ECF Nos. 1, 29).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is warranted if the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material if it must be decided to resolve the substantive claim or defense to which the motion is directed. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Ml U.S. 242, 248 (1986). There is a genuine dispute of material fact “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The Court must view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 255. It refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. Id. “[R]eal questions about credibility, gaps in the evidence, and doubts as to the sufficiency of the movant's proof[]” will defeat a motion for summary judgment. El v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 479 F.3d 232,238 (3d Cir. 2007). However, “an inference based upon a speculation or conjecture does not create a material factual dispute sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” ...