Howard v. Office of the Chief Admin. Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives

222 F.Supp.3d 57

Lataunya HOWARD, Plaintiff,

v.OFFICE OF the CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF the UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 09–1750

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed August 4, 2015

Ross Andrew Nabatoff, Law Office of Ross A. Nabatoff, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Jeremy S. Simon, Peter C. Pfaffenroth, U.S. Attorney'S Office, Kerry William Kircher, William Bullock Pittard, IV, Kaiser Dillon, PLLC, Eleni Maria Roumel, Isaac Benjamin Rosenberg, Todd Barry Tatelman, U.S. House of Representatives, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN

Defendant Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the United States House of Representatives (hereinafter, "CAO") brings this motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff Lataunya Howard's racial discrimination and retaliation claims brought pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 1311 and 2 U.S.C. § 1317, respectively. (Doc. No. 73). After reviewing the briefs and all other relevant material properly before the Court, the Court will GRANT the motion for summary judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) where "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The facts and all inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A genuine issue for trial exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Once a moving party produces evidence establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id . The mere existence of "a scintilla of evidence" in support of a plaintiff's position is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Id .See alsoBoykin v. Gray , 986 F.Supp.2d 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2013) ("The non-moving party's opposition ... must consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials and must be supported by affidavits, declarations or other competent evidence setting forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.").

BACKGROUND

On April 15, 2003, Plaintiff Lataunya Howard, an African American female, was hired by the CAO as a Deputy Budget Director.¹ Howard was employed on an at-will basis. (Doc. No. 73, Ex. I, Howard Dep. at 10–11). Throughout the course of her employment, Howard's salary was determined by a House Employees Schedule, which classified each employee by level and step. The employee's level and step is determined by reference to the employee's job duties, qualifications, experience, and longevity in the organization. (Doc. No. 73, Hite Decl. at para. 7). Upon hire, Howard was classified as a level 11, step 4 employee; she earned $83,544 annually. (Doc. No. 73 at 4).

During the three years she worked as a Deputy Budget Director, Howard consistently received high performance reviews. (Doc. No. 1, Compl. at para. 8). In 2006, Howard was promoted to Budget Director. (Doc. No. 73, Howard Dep. at 11–13). For much of the time she served as Budget Director, Howard worked under Ali Qureshi, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Operations, who in turn worked under Daniel Beard, Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

A. Howard's Transfer

According to the CAO, around January 2009 Beard decided that the Budget Department as well as the Budget Director position should be eliminated. (Doc. No. 73, Beard Aff. at para. 11). Qureshi asserts that he recommended that Beard move Howard, contemporaneously with the transfer, to a Senior Advisor position after the Budget Department was dissolved. (Doc. No. 73, Qureshi Decl. at para. 9). According to Qureshi, he recommended the Senior Advisor position for Howard because she had poor managerial capabilities. (Id. at paras. 7–10). Qureshi stated that these concerns about her managerial abilities were predicated, in part, on a "2008" "management effectiveness survey" generated by Howard's subordinates. (Id. ).

Howard received a mean score of 2.58 out of 5 on this survey. (Doc. No. 73, Hite Decl., Ex. 1). In the qualitative section of the open-ended portion of the survey, her subordinates indicated that Howard: "alienated some people with her brusque manner and edgy attitude; "created a disgruntled atmosphere;" "berate[d] an employee for asking a work-related question;" and "ma[d]e obscene gestures in the workplace to show her displeasure or just for shock value" (Id. ).

Later that January, Beard moved Howard to a Senior Advisor position. According to Beard, he transferred Howard based on Qureshi's recommendations as well as his own reasons:

First, Ms. Howard lacked the interpersonal skills to be an effective manager. Second, she had analytical skills that were useful to the Office of the CAO. Third, and most importantly, Ms. Howard made it difficult for me to effectively support the legislative activities of the Committees on Appropriations and House Administration by not sharing information with other employees ..., by not listening to other employees ..., and by communicating to the Committee on Appropriations and others information that reflected her own budgetary preferences rather than the views of the CAO.

(Doc. No. 73, Beard Aff. at para. 13). According to Beard, he then dissolved the Budget Department and transferred its responsibilities to another section. (Id .).²

Beard transferred two Caucasian male employees to the Senior Advisor position as well: Steen Hambric (formerly the Assistant Chief Administrator Officer for House Information Resources); and Norman Farley (formerly a director in House Information Resources). The transfer represented a significant decrease in managerial responsibility for both men. (See Qureshi Dep. at 80–91; Beard Aff. at para 11). However, Hambric and Farley, like Howard, each remained at the same level and step and maintained the same salary they received pre-transfer.³

After Howard was transferred, she decided to delete from her computer a software program known as OakTree. OakTree is utilized primarily in the creation of the "AE4 file." The "AE4 file" is an Excel spreadsheet used to "calculate the House's actual year-to-date expenditures for FICA, Medicare, and each personnel benefit, and to project the House's expected year-end expenditures for FICA, Medicare, and each personnel benefit." (See Howard Dep. at 59–62; Abbott Dep. at 61). As Budget Director, Howard had overseen and worked on the "AE4 file" several times over the last two years. It is uncontested that Howard was not instructed to delete OakTree.

B. Howard's Termination

On February 13, 2009, Qureshi directed Howard to set up and update the "AE4 file." (Qureshi Decl., Ex. 1 at 3–4 (Feb. 13, 2009 Qureshi email to Howard) ("I need your assistance on a budget related item. Could you please work with Elizabeth Nuti to set up the projection file for the Government contributions account as it needs to be updated it [sic] for the actual data through January?")). This process required: (1) creating a new "AE4 file;" (2) using the OakTree program to download year-to-date data; (3) validating any irregularities in the data; and (4) ensuring that "pivot tables" or summaries of the data are refreshed in the spreadsheet to reflect the updated data. (Doc. No. 73 at 9–10). Howard estimates that this task would have taken less than two hours to complete. (Qureshi Decl., Ex. 2 at 2 (Howard's email to Qureshi)).

Upon receiving the assignment, Howard emailed Nuti, a Caucasian co-worker, twice to "offer assistance" to Nuti as Nuti completed the assignment. (Qureshi Decl. Ex. 1, at 3 (Howard's email to Qureshi)). Nuti refused to do the assignment, arguing that Howard was supposed to do it by herself. (Id .).

On February 17, 2009, Howard emailed Qureshi to inform him that she believed the assignment had not been given to her. (Qureshi Decl., Ex. 1 at 2 (Feb. 17, 2009 Howard's email to Nuti and Qureshi)). Rather, according to Howard, the task was primarily assigned to one of two Caucasian employees—either Elizabeth Nuti or Jessica Abbott; Howard thought her assignment only involved providing guidance. (Id. ). Qureshi responded that Howard should update the "AE4 file" by herself. (Qureshi Decl., Ex. 1 at 2 (Feb. 17, 2009 Qureshi email to Howard)("In the spirit of teamwork and time sensitivity could you please set up and download the file? Your extensive knowledge of budget matters is the reason I asked Elizabeth to reach out to you. Thanks in advance for stepping in and helping.").

In response, Howard indicated that she now understood that she was tasked with setting up the "AE4 file" alone. (Id. at 1–2 (Feb. 17, 2009 Howard's email to Qureshi) ("I didn't learn until Friday afternoon [February 13, 2009] that I was expected to set up the file, versus help Elizabeth set up the file ....")). Howard maintained, however, that Nuti or Abbott should be assigned the task instead. (Id. (Feb. 17, 2009 Howard email to Qureshi) ("I believe that Jessica is in so perhaps she is available to begin setting up the file if needed.")). Howard did not want to do the assignment because she was "not comfortable with being solely responsible for setting up" the file as "she was no longer in Budget." (Id. (Feb. 17, 2009 Howard email to Qureshi)).⁴

Qureshi responded to this email on February 25, 2009. He reiterated that Howard needed to set up and update the "AE4 file." (Qureshi Decl., Ex. 1 at 1 (Feb. 25, 2009 Qureshi email to Howard) ("My recommendation [for...