Hockaday v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff Monica Hockaday sues her former employer, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), for fostering a hostile work environment and retaliation.

WMATA has moved for summary judgment. The Court will grant that motion because no reasonable jury could find for Hockaday. She complains only of ordinary workplace grievances, not severe or pervasive mistreatment. And WMATA's allegedly retaliatory acts are not actionable because they are not materially adverse. So the Court will grant WMATA's motion.

I.

The Court recounts the facts in the light most favorable to Hockaday. In 2002, WMATA hired Hockaday, an African American female, as a police officer in the Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD). Compl. ¶ 14. She was repeatedly promoted, eventually becoming a lieutenant. In 2008, she transferred to another division and began working with Lt George Burns. She alleges that Burns created an environment where male officials were comfortable making sexist comments about female officers. See Interrog. at 8, ECF No 13-19. Hockaday states that she reported these behaviors (though she does not state to whom). See id.

In 2009, Lt. Robert Kirkpatrick gave Hockaday a poor performance evaluation. See id. at 7. She spoke with Chief Michael Taborn about the evaluation and submitted written appeals. See id. Her evaluation was rewritten twice. See id. Chief Ronald Pavlik ignored her requests to review the final evaluation, instead submitting it to Human Resources. See id.

About a year later, Hockaday filed an EEOC complaint. See id. Apparently as a result of this complaint, Burns retired and was replaced by Lt. Brad Hanna. See id. Pavlik reportedly told Hanna to give Hockaday “a hard time” and “to make [her] life difficult.” Id. at 6. Hanna shared this comment with Hockaday. According to Hockaday, Hanna did not personally comply but allowed others to do so. See id. at 7.

A few years later, Deputy Chief Ernhart Olson investigated Hockaday after one of her subordinates accused her of creating a hostile work environment. See Admin. Inquiry, ECF No. 13-3. That officer, along with several other officers under Hockaday's supervision, provided extensive descriptions of Hockaday's allegedly threatening negative, and aggressive behavior. See generally id. Olson found that Hockaday's behavior was “unprofessional and unbecoming of an official of her rank.” Id. at 10. He cited her “loss of composure by yelling, flailing of arms, and slamming of books and other objects.” Id.

Olson recommended that Hockaday be issued a letter of reprimand and placed on a corrective action plan. See id. Pavlik review the investigation report, agreed with its findings, and approved that Hockaday receive a letter of reprimand. See id. at 1. Hockaday disclaims the allegations. See Interrog. at 7; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Mat. Facts (SUMF) ¶ 2, ECF No. 14-3. She claims that Olson later told her that he “knew the investigation was bullshit,” and that Assistant Chief Rodney Parks similarly told her that the investigation was based on “implicit and explicit bias.” See Interrog. at 7.

Four years later, Pavlik issued Hockaday another letter of reprimand after she admitted to sharing a photo of her colleague in a vulnerable position. See SUMF ¶ 3; 2d Letter of Reprimand, ECF No. 13-4.

In January 2018, Hockaday received a 24-hour suspension without pay after a Montgomery County police officer stopped her for a traffic infraction and she responded unprofessionally. See Interrog. at 4; SUMF ¶ 4. She denies wrongdoing and claims the suspension was in retaliation for a complaint she filed with Montgomery County alleging that the officer racially profiled her. See Interrog. at 4. According to Hockaday, Pavlik admitted that he liked the Montgomery County officer who initiated the stop and suspended her for that reason. See id. A senior employee relations officer concluded that the suspension was fairly handed out after investigating Hockaday's concerns. See SUMF ¶ 5.

In August 2018, Hockaday received a third letter of reprimand for failing to ensure that her assigned officers updated required records. 3d Letter of Reprimand at 2, ECF No. 13-7. Captain Peter Sepulveda conducted the investigation, and Pavlik approved the reprimand. See id. Hockaday says her failure resulted from inadequate training. See Interrog. at 6. And she claims that the real reason for the investigation and reprimand was that Sepulveda was retaliating against her for a complaint she made against him earlier that year. See id.

In November 2018, Hockaday filed a Charge of Discrimination with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the EEOC alleging race and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation. See SUMF ¶ 7. Broadly speaking, she alleged that she was improperly reprimanded, given biased performance reviews, and subjected to sexist and racist remarks. See Letter from M. Hockaday to Ms. Colunga (Nov. 26, 2018) at 1, ECF No. 14-9.

That year, Hockaday received two more letters of reprimand for losing her police credentials and for crashing into a parked car. See SUMF ¶¶ 9-10; ECF Nos. 13-9, 13-10. Pavlik reviewed the investigative reports and approved the reprimands. See ECF Nos. 13-9, 1310.

In 2020, WMATA investigated Hockaday and some colleagues for mishandling evidence. See SUMF ¶ 11. She received a 24-hour suspension. See id. Two other officers also received suspensions. See id. ¶¶ 12-13. Though Pavlik signed the letter authorizing this discipline, Hockaday objects that the investigation was initiated and conducted by a peer. See Interrog. at 3. According to her, this was not a normal practice. See id.

A senior employee relations officer conducted a “comprehensive review” of her objections to the suspension and found that her concerns were unfounded. See May 12, 2020, Mem., ECF No. 13-12. Undeterred, Hockaday filed an internal complaint alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation. See SUMF ¶ 16; May 20, 2020, Discrim. Compl., ECF No. 13-13.

Soon after, Hockaday requested authorization to obtain outside employment. See SUMF ¶ 17. Deputy Chief Stephen Boehm denied this request given Hockaday's use of leave and work performance during the relevant ratings period. See Emp. Denial at 2, ECF No. 13-14. She alleges this denial violated various WMATA policies. See Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Mat. Facts (Pl.'s SMF) ¶ 24.

In August 2020, Boehm completed Hockaday's 2019-2020 performance evaluation. See 2020 Eval. at 4, ECF No. 13-16. She was given a “Solid Performer” rating. See id.

In September 2020, Hockaday was scheduled to meet with her immediate supervisor, Acting Captain Nopadon McKee, and Boehm to discuss her 2021 performance objectives. See 2020 Emails at 5, ECF No. 13-18. Hockaday felt uncomfortable and “bullied” by the presence of Boehm, so she insisted that she have a third-party present “to even things out.” Id. at 5-6. Boehm denied her request, cut the meeting short, and issued her an emergency 24-hour suspension for insubordination. See id.; Dep. of Monica Hockaday (Hockaday Dep.) at 4, ECF No. 13-2. The next day, the new police chief, Michael Anzallo, rescinded that suspension. See Hockaday Dep. at 8-9; Dep. of Daniel Alvarez (Alvarez Dep.) at 5, ECF No. 13-20.

Though the suspension was rescinded, Hockaday was placed on paid administrative leave for about two weeks while the incident was investigated. See 2020 Emails at 8. Hockaday claims this “discipline” was “humiliating” and uncalled for. Hockaday Dep. at 13.

In October 2020, Hockaday filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights alleging race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. See Charge of Discrim., ECF No. 13-17. Among other things, she complained that she had been unfairly overlooked for promotions, improperly disciplined, and denied reasonable accommodations. See id. at 1-2.

Hockaday filed this lawsuit in December 2021 and retired in April 2022. See SUMF ¶ 1. After discovery, WMATA moved for summary judgment. See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (MSJ), ECF No. 13. The Court has jurisdiction under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

II.

Summary judgment is proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” so that he “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Thus, to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must set forth “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). But “if the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50.

In this posture, the Court must “view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light more favorable to the” nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (cleaned up).

III.

The Court considers Hockaday's (A) hostile work environment claim and her (B) retaliation claim.

A.

Consider first Hockaday's hostile work environment claim. She claims that WMATA employees mistreated her for her gender, race, and protected activity.^[1]See generally Compl. WMATA responds that Hockaday has not shown severe or pervasive workplace misconduct. See MSJ at 4-7. WMATA is correct.

To win, Hockaday must show that WMATA subjected her to “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (cleaned up).

To evaluate this claim, the Court “looks to the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory...