Guillen-Perez v. Dist. of Columbia

415 F.Supp.3d 50

Virginia GUILLEN-PEREZ, Plaintiff,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-2086 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed November 26, 2019

Andrew Nyombi, Pro Hac Vice, Silver Spring, MD, for Plaintiff.

Christina Okereke, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Virginia Guillen-Perez ("Guillen") worked as a call-center assistant in the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (the "Department") from 2012 until 2016. After she was terminated purportedly because of customers' complaints about her poor customer service, she brought suit against the District—as well as the Department and its mayor—alleging that they had discriminated and retaliated against her, in violation of various federal and D.C. laws. On April 6, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 16. The remaining parties proceeded to discovery on Guillen's remaining claims of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and interference with and retaliation for taking protected medical leave, in violation of the federal and D.C. Family and Medical Leave Acts. Discovery now complete, the District moves for summary judgment on those claims. The Court will deny the motion with respect to certain aspects of Plaintiff's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims and grant it as to the rest.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Guillen is a Hispanic woman who immigrated to the United States from the Dominican Republic. In September 2012, the Department hired Guillen on a term basis as a Clerical Assistant in the Office of Unemployment Compensation ("OUC") at Grade 5, Step 1 with an annual wage of $30,577. Def. Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 1-3. Guillen's initial appointment was for thirteen months and had to be renewed by the Department every six months. As Guillen's term appointment was repeatedly renewed, she received annual step increases to her salary. Id. ¶ 4.

The Department initially assigned Guillen to work in the American Jobs Center, but quickly reassigned her in December 2012 to work in the Unemployment Insurance Call Center ("Call Center"). Madison Dep. 15:20-16:1. There, Guillen was responsible for answering calls and responding to questions from claimants and applicants for unemployment benefits. Warrick Decl. ¶ 2; Guillen Dep. 16:13-17:7. At the time of Guillen's transfer, the Call Center was staffed by twelve to fifteen other representatives, two of whom were Hispanic and the rest of whom were African American. Guillen Dep. 21:17-22:8.

1. FMLA Leave

In July 2014, Guillen requested FMLA leave after being diagnosed with breast cancer, which was approved by her supervisor at the time, Helen Carnavale, and the Department. Guillen Dep. 109:10-110:17. Guillen underwent surgery and took FMLA leave from October through December 2014. Id. 110:17. When Guillen returned to work in January 2015, Xzaquoinett Warrick, an African American woman, had been hired as the new supervisor for the Call Center.

Warrick and Guillen apparently did not get along. Guillen had a number of follow-up medical appointments, for which she requested and received approval for leave to attend. Warrick Decl. ¶ 21; Ex. 1, Guillen Dep. 113:6-13. According to Guillen, "Warrick was not happy that [she] had been away from work on leave and continued to be having follow-up doctor's appointments." Pl. Resp. Interrog. ¶ 12. In June 2015, Warrick emailed Guillen her productivity report for the week of May 25, 2015, in which she commented "Your CALLS ANSWERED decreased (due to your absences ). One MISSED CALL[ ] and THE LOWEST HOLD TIME. Good job overall." Def. Mot. Summ. J., Exh. 3 (emphasis added). According to Guillen, Warrick also altered the attendance reflected on her timesheets. Guillen Dep. 74:5-77:1.

2. Race and National Origin Discrimination

Guillen also complained to Warrick about other perceived double standards in the workplace, such as Warrick permitting African-American coworkers to show up late to work or to take unscheduled breaks but requiring Guillen to strictly follow the work schedule. For example, in July 2015, Warrick sent Guillen an email advising her to be "more cognizant" of her arrival time, which was scheduled to be 8:30 a.m. each day, as Warrick had noticed that Guillen's "arrival time ha[d] varied from [8:31 a.m. to 8:33 a.m.] for the past two weeks." Pl. Opp., Exh. 4. By contrast, Guillen contends that Warrick permitted Charmaine Harris, an African-American co-worker with whom Warrick was friendly, to have a more relaxed arrival and break schedule. See id., Exh. 11 at 4 (tracking by Guillen of Harris's sporadic arrival and break times).

Around that same time period, Guillen also began complaining about receiving less pay than her African-American co-workers. According to Guillen, she was hired at Grade 5, while all other representatives in the Call Center were designated Grade 7 or above. Guillen Dep. 36:18-22. On February 27, 2015, Guillen filed a complaint against the Department with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The complaint alleged that the Department had violated the Equal Pay Act by paying all other representatives at the Call Center an annual salary of $40,000 or more, but paying Guillen an annual salary of, as of October 2014, only $34,000. Pl. Opp., Exh. 5 at 2. The EEOC dismissed Guillen's complaint on March 4, 2015 after being unable to conclude that the information that it had obtained from its investigation established any statutory violation. Id.

Guillen also raised concerns about her unequal pay directly with the Department. In a "[o]ne-on-one" meeting with Warrick in July 2015, Guillen requested a "pay increase," to which Warrick responded that there was "nothing she c[ould] do about it." Guillen Dep. 79:4-8; Warrick Decl. ¶ 23; Pl. Opp., Exh. 11 at 7. Guillen told Warrick that she was "going to go [through] other channels to request [a promotion] because [she was] doing the [same] job," to which Warrick responded, "fine." Guillen Dep. 81:2-11.

Guillen then wrote to Monnikka Madison, who was the Office's Chief of Benefits, on August 1, 2015. Id. 81:7-11; Madison Dep. 10:3-11:1. Guillen explained that she "strongly believe[d] it [wa]s appropriate for [her] to be formally promoted to Grade 7 ... because [she] d[id] the same work [that] everyone else in the Call Center d[id]." Pl. Opp., Exh. 8. Guillen emphasized the need for "internal equality in the workplace" and that she had been working at the Call Center for three years and had an additional language skill. Id. Madison promptly forwarded the email to Warrick. Madison Dep. 21:7-19.

Two days later, on August 3, 2015, Warrick sent Guillen an Advance Written Notice of Proposed Suspension of Ten Days. Def. Mot. Summ. J., Exh. 10; Guillen Dep. 81:10-11. The Notice alleged that Guillen had engaged in "neglect of duty, [u]nreasonable failure to give assistance to the public, incompetence and insubordination" in connection with three separate incidents—taking place on May 20, July 8, and July 16, 2015—in which customers complained about Guillen being rude and hanging up on them. Def. Mot. Summ, J., Exh. 10 at 3. Guillen's union counsel responded that the proposed suspension was "unduly harsh." Pl. Opp., Exh. 10.

Guillen filed an employment grievance with the Department on September 28, 2015 complaining of the Department's purported retaliation against her, her unequal pay, and Warrick's unfavorable treatment of her. Pl. Opp., Exh. 11. Meanwhile, Guillen's term appointment was up for renewal. Before the proposed suspension was resolved, the Department decided not to renew Guillen's appointment. The "standard protocol" was for an employee's direct supervisor to justify an employee's termination and for the Chief of Benefits to sign off on that decision. Madison Dep. 24:1-6. Warrick made the recommendation to Madison not to renew Guillen's term appointment in "late August 2015," and Madison signed off. Id.; Warrick Decl. ¶ 20. Guillen received official notice of her termination on October 9, 2015. Def. Mot. Summ. J., Exh. 11.

B. Procedural History

Following her termination, Guillen filed a charge with the D.C. Office of Human Rights (which was deemed cross-filed with the EEOC due to the work-share agreement between the two agencies) alleging various violations of District and federal law. After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Guillen brought suit in this Court against the District of Columbia, the Department, and District Mayor Muriel Bowser.

The Defendants moved to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 16. The Court dismissed the Department and Mayor Bowser as defendants. Left standing were Guillen's (1) Title VII race and national origin discrimination claims, Am. Compl. Counts 1-2; (2) Title VII retaliation claim, id. Count 5; (2) federal and D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act interference and retaliation claims, id. Counts 8-10. The parties proceeded to discovery on those claims, and the District now moves for summary judgment.

II. Legal Standard

Courts must grant summary judgment where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the "absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). In making that determination, the Court must "view the facts and draw reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the [non-moving] party ....’ " Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (quoting United...