Craig v. Mnuchin, Civil Action No.: 14–1340 (RC)

278 F.Supp.3d 42

B.B. CRAIG, Plaintiff,

v.Steven MNUCHIN, Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury,¹ Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 14–1340 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 29, 2017

Charlene Bofinger, Lauren Marsh Drabic, Molly E. Buie, Robert C. Seldon, Seldon Bofinger & Associates, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Marsha Wellknown Yee, William Mark Nebeker, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff B.B. Craig, an official at the United States Mint (the "Mint"), brings this suit against Steven Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Now before the Court is the Secretary's Motion for Summary Judgment. See generally Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 33. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in Defendant's motion.

II. BACKGROUND²

The Mint, which is a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury ("Treasury"), is responsible for not only manufacturing and distributing coins used by the public in commerce, but also for manufacturing, marketing and selling collectible ("numismatic") coins and investment grade bullion. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 1. Within the Mint, marketing and selling of such products is the responsibility of the Sales and Marketing Division ("SAM Division"), which is overseen by the Mint's Associate Director for Sales and Marketing ("A/D SAM"). See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶¶ 7, 13–14.

On November 17, 2008, the Mint hired B.B. Craig, an African–American man, to be its A/D SAM. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 13. In that role, Mr. Craig reported directly to the Deputy Director of the Mint and was charged with leading an organization responsible for generating sales of approximately $500 million annually. See Dep. B.B. Craig ("Craig Dep.") at 25:12–26:5, 32:24–33:9, ECF No. 51–3. Mr. Craig had "authority to speak and act on behalf of the Mint in public meetings and private conferences with senior officials of the [ ] Treasury, top-level Mint management, and representatives of other agencies of the federal government and international governments." Decl. B.B. Craig ("Craig Decl.") ¶ 3, ECF No. 40–2. Mr. Craig also had significant supervisory authority, with approximately ninety-four full-time equivalent employees allotted to the SAM Division. See Craig Decl. ¶ 4.

Upon assuming the A/D SAM position, Mr. Craig also became a member of the Senior Executive Service ("SES"), the Federal government's executive management core. Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶¶ 6–7, 13. Members of the SES are "charged with executive management of key governmental programs, divisions, offices, and functions within Federal executive branch agencies, such as the Mint." Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 8. However, they are governed differently than other federal employees and can, at the discretion of the agency, be reassigned to any SES position within an agency for which they are qualified or be "detailed" to a position with unclassified duties within the agency or to another agency for up to 240 days. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶¶ 10–12; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 16 at 9, 11–12, ECF No 41–14.

This case primarily concerns Mr. Craig's removal from his position as A/D SAM, his placement into other inferior roles at the Mint, and Defendant's refusal to reassign him to a position that was commensurate with the A/D SAM position. Of central importance to all of these claims is Mr. Craig's performance on two critical projects during the 2012 fiscal year rating period ("FY 2012")—the Order Management System Project and the Comprehensive Numismatic Marketing Plan and Advertising Spend Request. The Secretary claims that Mr. Craig's inadequate performance on these two projects set into motion a series of employment actions that Mr. Craig is now alleging were discriminatory and retaliatory. Indeed, Defendant argues that Mr. Craig's performance justified Mr. Craig's FY 2012 performance evaluation, his removal from the A/D SAM position, and prompted Defendant to find another position at the Mint that was a "better fit" for Mr. Craig. Ultimately, the "better fit" that Defendant identified was a detail to a position called "Executive Lead," which, unlike Mr. Craig's previous position, had unclassified duties and no supervisory authority. Although Mr. Craig remained in the Executive Lead position beyond the 240–day limit, he was eventually reassigned to a permanent SES position as Associate Director of Environment, Safety, and Health ("A/D ES & H"), which Mr. Craig argues is only marginally better than the "Executive Lead" position and was far from commensurate with his former A/D SAM position.

A. The OMS Project

One of the projects that Mr. Craig worked on during the FY 2012 rating period was the Order Management System Project ("OMS Project" or "the Project").See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 22–23. This Project was undertaken by the SAM Division and the Mint's Information Technology Division ("IT"). See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 22; Pl.'s Statement Genuine Issues ¶ 16, ECF No. 40–1. The Mint's goal was to overhaul, upgrade, and revise the Mint's existing online ordering system that the public used to purchase Mint products. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 22. Between SAM and IT, SAM was responsible for specifying its needs and how the system should function, while IT was responsible for delivering the system. See Dep. Beverly Babers ("Babers Dep.") at 120:5–121:13, ECF No. 51–1 (SAM is responsible for identifying "what we need and this is how we need it to work and this is why it important to our customers," while IT is responsible for presenting "here is how you do it and here are your options for doing it."); Craig Dep. at 84:1–5 ("So the way it was designed, IT was the lead of the [P]roject. I was the customer, but I had say-so and I was supposed to give up resources to make the [P]roject an accomplishment."). However, this was to be a highly collaborative process between the two departments. See Babers Dep. at 121:13–15 ("So it's got to be really, really collaborative. And they are both [SAM and IT] both very critical to the situation."). Overseeing the Project was an Executive Steering Committee ("ESC"), which was to provide support, guidance, and resources to ensure that the OMS Project was a success. See Dep. Richard Peterson ("Peterson Dep.") at 76:10–20, ECF No. 50–2. Both Mr. Craig and the Mint's Chief Information Officer ("CIO") served on this committee. See Peterson Dep. at 75:14–17; accord Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 51.

The Project was initiated at the beginning of FY 2012, but by Spring of 2012, problems had emerged. Richard Peterson, the Deputy Director of the Mint, recalled that by early April, he felt that the "[P]roject was not on track" and knew "the [P]roject was late and behind budget." Peterson Dep. at 79:17–20. Thus, in May 2012, Mr. Peterson made the decision to temporarily halt the OMS Project and retain the Mitre Corporation ("Mitre") to conduct an analysis of the OMS Project's continued viability. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 31.

Around this same time, Mr. Peterson hired Beverly Babers. Earlier that year Mr. Peterson had decided to seek additional executive management resources for the Mint. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 32. Thus, in April and May of 2012, Mr. Peterson interviewed and ultimately hired Ms. Babers to be the Mint's Chief Administrative Officer. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 33. Before she began working at the Mint, however, Mr. Peterson asked Ms. Babers to attend a meeting with Mitre and other Mint executives to discuss the OMS Project. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 34. At that meeting, Mitre described its findings and recommended that the OMS Project be temporarily suspended. See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 35; Babers Dep. at 106:1–11. Ms. Babers testified that her understanding of Mitre's findings from that meeting was that "there was lack of ... governance and oversight that contributed to the failure of the [P]roject and, specifically, [that] the IT and Sales and Marketing Departments had failed to effectively collaborate." Babers Dep. at 107:14–19.

Indeed, Mitre found systemic and programmatic deficiencies in the OMS Project, one of which was "governance." See Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 36. One problem that Mitre identified was the Project's "shifting program accountability and decision making." Def.'s Mot., Ex. 15 at Bates No. 002548, ECF No. 35–3. According to Mitre, while the documented governance processes indicated that the CIO was "responsible and accountable for program delivery," it observed that the ESC "[did] not operate in accordance with its documented roles and responsibilities and [was] acting in a de facto decision-making capacity." Def.'s Mot., Ex. 16 at 7, ECF No. 35–4. So while, "program accountability [resided] with the [CIO], [ ] decision-making [was] diffused via the ESC." Def.'s Mot., Ex. 16 at 7. In addition, Mitre identified "weak communications," "conflicting assumptions about program scope and intent," and "internal discord." Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶¶ 36, 38; see also Def.'s Mot., Ex. 15 at Bates No. 002548. It concluded that this "infighting [was] endangering pursuit of [the Mint's] goal." Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶¶ 36, 38; see also Def.'s Mot, Ex. 15 at Bates No. 002548. Thus, Mitre recommended that the Mint make improvements to its "program governance and management structures, methods, and disciplines," Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 37, but also that it "slow down" the Project until "certain systemic improvements in governance and management of the [P]roject were incorporated." Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 39.

Mr. Craig does not dispute that Mitre made such findings or that they were discussed during the meeting with Ms. Babers. However, according to Mr. Craig, the failure of the Project had nothing to do with him or the SAM Division, but was, instead,...