Davis v. Dist. of Columbia

1

RONDA L. DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 10-1564 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

February 23, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re Document No.: 197

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

The initial Complaint in this matter was filed over thirteen years ago, alleging that the District of Columbia made personnel cuts that discriminated against African American employees. This action has already been through several rounds of summary judgment and an appeal, and the Court's most recent opinion concluded that Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of racially discriminatory disparate impact. Now, the District of Columbia brings another motion for summary judgment, claiming that the terminations were justified by business necessity and that no dispute of any material fact remains. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (“Mot. Summ. J.”), ECF No. 197. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. The Child and Family Services Agency

The District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (“CFSA” or the “Agency”) is charged with protecting the safety and well-being of abused and neglected children and with providing services to struggling families. See Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Def.'s SOF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 197-1. Although the parties dispute the exact organizational structure of CFSA during the relevant time period, compare id. ¶ 2, with Pls.' Statement of Disputed Material Facts (“Pls.' Disputed SOF”) at 1, ECF No. 198-1, it is undisputed that many of CFSA's “frontline functions”-including investigating reports of child abuse and neglect, temporarily removing children from dangerous situations, and providing direct case management-were led by the Office of Agency Programs, see Def.'s SOF ¶ 3; Pls.' Disputed SOF at 2. Each of the Agency Programs divisions were led by a Social Work Manager (“SWM”) who oversaw a number of Supervisory Social Workers (“SSW”). See Pls.' Ex. 1 at 24-26, ECF No. 198-2.^[1] The SSWs supervised Social Workers and Social Work Assistants (“SWA”).^[2] Id. In turn, the SWAs were supported by Social Service Assistants (“SSA”). Id.; Pls.' Ex. 7 ¶ 8, ECF No. 198-8.

CFSA is required to maintain a balanced budget, and amid the Great Recession, CFSA experienced significant budgetary pressure. See Def.'s SOF ¶ 9. In fiscal year (“FY”) 2010 (October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010), CFSA's budget decreased by $25.3 million from the prior year. Id. These budget cuts included reductions in rates paid to congregate and familybased foster care, reduced technology services, decreased contract funds with community collaboratives, and personnel cuts. Id. ¶ 10.

These cuts would continue. In early 2010, CFSA began developing its FY 2011 budget. Id. ¶ 11. The budget process began with the D.C. Mayor's Office providing CFSA with the number of funds available for FY 2011. Id. ¶ 12. CFSA submitted a proposed budget to the Mayor's office, which was reviewed and revised in consideration with all other D.C. agency budget submissions. Id. ¶ 13. On review, the Office of the City Administrator directed that CFSA cut $3.2 million in personnel costs. Id. ¶ 14. The Mayor's proposed FY 2011 budget included CFSA budget cuts and a reduction in the Agency's authorized FTEs. Id. ¶ 15. The final FY 2011 budget approved by the D.C. City Council reduced CFSA's budget by $12.1 million and cut FTEs from 892 down to 840. Id. ¶ 16.

The Agency was required to make the required budget cuts before October 1, 2010, the beginning of FY 2011. See id. ¶¶ 17-18. To balance the budget, CFSA made significant nonpersonnel cuts. Id. ¶ 19. CFSA reduced administrative costs, funds available for conferences and training, and reimbursements for foster care. Id. CFSA also reduced its contract with the Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives and eliminated the contract with the Foster Parent Association. Id. And CFSA eliminated grants to the D.C. Children's Trust Fund and Adoptions Together Respite Care. See id. Nonetheless, CFSA still needed to cut employee positions.

2. The LaShawn Court Order

During the relevant time period, CFSA was under a consent decree in a class action case that governed its provision of services. See LaShawn v. Bowser, No. 89-cv-1754 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2007), ECF No. 864 (order approving Amended Implementation Plan). The District states the LaShawn compliance plan “required CFSA to employ a specific staffing model for social workers and their supervisors” and because “CFSA needed to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the LaShawn consent order, the Agency was necessarily limited in terms of its options for reducing the number of social worker, supervisor, and program manager positions.” Mot. Summ. J. at 6. Plaintiffs instead characterize LaShawn as setting “non- objective, non-concrete criteria” that did not constrain the Agency's personnel decisions. See Pls. Opp'n Mot. Summ. J. (“Opp'n Mot. Summ. J”) at 18, ECF No. 198.

3. The Reduction in Force

To reduce personnel costs consistent with the FY 2011 budget, CFSA conducted a reduction-in-force (“RIF”). Def.'s SOF ¶ 18. Because the RIF needed to be fully implemented before the beginning of FY 2011, CFSA chose an effective termination date of June 11, 2010 for employees subject to the RIF. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. CFSA eliminated a total of 115 positions in the RIF. Id. ¶ 20.

On April 20, 2010, the Director of CFSA, Dr. Roque Gerald, requested approval for the RIF from the City Administrator, Neil Albert. Id. ¶ 50. In that request, Dr. Gerald stated that CFSA “must conduct a realignment to consolidate functions in accordance with the FY'2011 budget and internal re-engineering,” and that “[t]he deficit resulting from the realignment will precipitate a Reduction-In-Force.” Def.'s Ex. G at 2, ECF No. 197-10. CFSA did not use a “single uniform criterion, test or requirement for determining which employees would be separated from the Agency in the RIF.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 24. Instead, positions were cut based on “multiple individual decisions” by Dr. Gerald in “close consultation with the Chief of Staff, the Deputy Directors in charge of CFSA's various divisions, and other senior level managers in the Agency's executive team.” Id. ¶ 25; see Def.'s Ex. D ¶ 4, ECF No. 197-7. On April 29, 2010, Dr. Gerald sent another memorandum requesting approval to eliminate 123 positions. See Pls.' Ex. 2 at 10, ECF No. 198-3. Plaintiffs note that rather than specifying that the RIF targeted only particular positions, this memorandum provided an “agency wide” list of positions to be cut across CFSA offices. See id. at 10-13; Pls.' Disputed SOF at 5-6.

In letters sent on May 6, 2010, Dr. Gerald informed each of 115 CFSA employees that their employment with CFSA would be terminated effective June 11, 2020. See Pls.' Ex. 3 at 1, ECF No. 198-4. Each letter stated that “[t]his action is in accordance with Chapter 24 of the District's Personnel Regulations and in no way reflects adversely on your performance of your official duties.” See id. The elimination of the SSA and SWA positions accounted for the majority of the 115 employees terminated in the RIF.^[3] Def.'s SOF ¶ 30; Pls.' Disputed SOF at 8. The SSAs and SWAs were overwhelmingly African American.^[4]

The parties disagree about the nature of the RIF. According to the District, which relies on a declaration from Raymond Davidson, CFSA's Chief Administrative Officer at the time, CFSA sought to implement the RIF personnel cuts by “realigning functions and implementing new service models within three specific divisions within the Agency: Agency Programs, the Office of Clinical Practice, and the Office of Community Services.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 27; see also Def.'s Ex. D ¶¶ 5-13. Plaintiffs disagree and describe the RIF as “a neutral cost-cutting move,” although without supporting evidence for this characterization. Pls.' Disputed SOF at 6. Either way, most employees impacted by the RIF were in Agency Programs. Def.'s SOF ¶ 62. CFSA decided it was necessary to implement a model in Agency Programs where Social Workers were “teamed” with a set of partners. Def.'s SOF ¶ 28. Plaintiffs dispute that this “team model” was actually more effective for the Agency's mission, that this model was a driving force for the RIF, or even that the model was anything more than “new jargon to refer to the same work.” Pls.' Disputed SOF at 7.

4. The Newly Created Family Support Worker Position

The parties have starkly different views on the Family Support Worker (“FSW”) position. According to the District, to advance the “team” model, CFSA eliminated the SSA and SWA positions in the RIF and replaced them with the new FSW position. See Def.'s Ex H, ECF No. 197-11. Like the SWA position, but unlike the SSA position, the FSW position required a bachelor's degree in a social service field. Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 29, 61; see also Pls.' Disputed SOF at 12 (acknowledging the degree requirement). The District says that the FSW position had “new major duties” such as “coordinating team meetings, clarifying team member roles (including that of family members and third parties), maintaining all case-work related documentation (including clinical notes), and preparation of reports for court.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 61. Similarly, Debra Porchia-Usher, CFSA's Deputy Director for Agency Programs, stated that FSWs would be:

able to perform casework activities that support investigative social workers to obtain the information necessary to complete investigations of abuse and neglect, including interviewing family members, children, and caretakers[;] assessing the safety of a home and the

...