Moran v. U.S. Capitol Police

82 F.Supp.3d 117

Luanne Lynn Moran, Plaintiff

v.United States Capitol Police, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12–0801 ABJ

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed February 12, 2015

Andrew D. Levy, Annette DeCesaris, Attorney at Law, LLC, Bowie, MD, for Plaintiff.

Frederick Michael Herrera, United States Capitol Police, Peter C. Pfaffenroth, Mitchell P. Zeff, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Luanne Lynn Moran brought this action against the United States Capitol Police (“USCP”), alleging that defendant retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity in violation of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. § 1301, et seq. (“CAA”). Defendant has moved for summary judgment. Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 17] (“Def.'s Mot.”); Def.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 17] (“Def.'s Mem.”). Since defendant has advanced a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for plaintiff's termination, and because plaintiff has failed to put forth sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could determine that defendant's proffered reason is pretextual, the Court will grant defendant's motion and dismiss the case.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The following facts are undisputed, except where noted. Plaintiff was employed as a Special Agent (“SA”) with the USCP from October 1995 until her termination on October 19, 2011. Aff. of Luanne Lynn Moran, Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Opp. to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 18–1] (“Moran Aff.”) ¶ 2. Beginning in 1998 and through her termination, plaintiff served with the Dignitary Protection Division. Id.

A. Plaintiff's Internal Complaints Against Defendant

In January of 2005,¹ plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the Office of Compliance, alleging that defendant discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her gender when it denied her request to transfer to the detail protecting the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (“the Speaker”). Moran Aff. ¶ 4; Def.'s Mem. at 2. This complaint was eventually settled, and plaintiff was assigned to the Speaker's detail in 2007. Moran Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Def.'s Mem. at 2.

In August and November of 2008, plaintiff filed two separate administrative complaints with defendant's Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”). Moran Aff. ¶¶ 9–10, 28. The first alleged that plaintiff had been told by coworkers that Supervisory Special Agent (“SSA”) Dorman Simmons had made sexually inappropriate comments to and about other female employees. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff was not present for any of these comments, and none were directed at her. Id. ¶¶ 9–10; Def.'s Mem. at 3. Plaintiff's second complaint claimed that defendant's employees, including SSA Simmons, were retaliating against plaintiff for filing the August complaint against SSA Simmons. Moran Aff. ¶ 28.

B. Defendant's Investigation of Plaintiff

On August 16, 2008, plaintiff's coworker SA Dana M. Susak filed a complaint with SSA Raymond L. Stonestreet—one of plaintiff's supervisors—alleging that plaintiff had referred to SA Susak as “trash,” told her to “get the f* * * away from [plaintiff's] truck” while on a protective detail in Washington, D.C., and suggested on a separate occasion while on a protective detail in Napa, California that SA Susak should be shot with a BB gun.² USCP Report of Investigation—Truthfulness, Ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot [Dkt. # 17–1] (“Truthfulness Investigation Rep.”) at 2–3; Email from Dana M. Susak to Raymond L. Stonestreet (Aug. 16, 2008), Attach. 4 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1] at 1; see also Moran Aff. ¶¶ 18–19. SSA Stonestreet was present when plaintiff referred to SA Susak as “trash,” but he was not present for the other incidents. Memorandum from SSA Raymond L. Stonestreet, Attach. 5 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1] at 1; Moran Aff. ¶ 18.

On September 4, 2008, SSA Stonestreet began a formal investigation based on SA Susak's allegations, and on October 28, 2008, he interviewed plaintiff in connection with the investigation. Truthfulness Investigation Rep. at 1–2; Moran Aff. ¶¶ 17–19. SSA John A. DeWolfe was also present for the interview. Truthfulness Investigation Rep. at 1; Moran Aff. ¶ 18. Prior to the interview, plaintiff reviewed and signed Form 1009, “Rights and Responsibilities Relative to Administrative Investigations,” which states that USCP employees “are compelled to truthfully and fully answer all questions posed by a supervisor” during an investigation. Truthfulness Investigation Rep. at 1; Moran Aff. ¶ 18; USCP CP–1009, “Rights and Responsibilities Relative to Administrative Investigations,” Attach. 11 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1].

During the interview, SSA Stonestreet questioned plaintiff about the incidents involving SA Susak. The interview was not transcribed, and the parties differ as to the exact phrasing of the questions posed to plaintiff and the content of her answers. According to defendant, plaintiff was asked directly whether she used profanity toward SA Susak while on a protective detail in Washington, D.C. and whether she stated while on a protective detail in Napa, California that SA Susak “should be shot with a BB gun,” and plaintiff specifically denied both allegations. Def.'s Mem. at 6; see also Truthfulness Investigation Rep. at 1 (stating that plaintiff “denied both allegations” that she directed profanity at SA Susak and that she stated that SA Susak should be shot with a BB gun). Defendant points to contemporaneous accounts in support of its rendition of events. See Interview Notes of SSA DeWolfe, Attach. 10 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1] (“DeWolfe Notes”) (noting that plaintiff stated that she “would not use profanity towards SA Susak” and that she “denied making the threatening statement involving the BB gun”); Interview Notes of SSA Stonestreet, Attach. 12 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1] (“Stonestreet Notes”) (stating that, regarding use of profanity, plaintiff said she “[d]idn't say it” and would “not curse [at] her” and that regarding the BB gun comment, plaintiff stated that “she didn't say” it).

However, in her affidavit in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff describes the interview differently, and she insists that when she spoke to SSA Stonestreet in October 2008, she truthfully admitted calling SA Susak trash, she admitted directing profanity at SA Susak, and she answered simply that she did not recall when asked about the BB gun remark. Moran Aff. ¶¶ 18–19.

After his meeting with plaintiff, SSA Stonestreet interviewed and took written statements from coworkers who witnessed the incidents in question or discussed them immediately afterwards with plaintiff. Truthfulness Investigation Rep. at 1. These interviews corroborated SA Susak's claims. See Attachs. 2, 5, 7–9 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1]. At the conclusion of the investigation, SSA Stonestreet determined that plaintiff had made the comments in question and had violated the Rules of Conduct for Courtesy and Conduct Unbecoming of a USCP officer. See USCP Report of Investigation – Courtesy and Conduct Unbecoming, Attach. 1 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1] at 12–13. SSA Stonestreet also undertook a review of plaintiff's veracity during the interview, and he drafted a report of investigation relating to plaintiff's truthfulness. Def.'s Mem. at 7 n.4; see also Draft USCP Report of Investigation—Truthfulness, Attach. 2 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1] (“SSA Stonestreet Truthfulness Investigation Draft Rep.”) at 2.

Plaintiff was disciplined for the courtesy and conduct violations, and she appealed the decision to USCP Chief Phillip D. Morse in December 2008. See Memorandum of Appeal, Attach. 3 to Truthfulness Investigation Rep. [Dkt. # 17–1]. In her appeal, plaintiff recounted an incident where, in her words, she had told SA Susak “to get the f* * * out of my vehicle,” and she acknowledged that she “did call Dana [Susak] trash.” Id. at 4. Chief Morse noted that plaintiff's appeal letter contradicted the testimony she reportedly provided during the Stonestreet interview, and he forwarded the case to OPR for an investigation into whether plaintiff had made untruthful statements during the official administrative investigation into her conduct. Decl. of Phillip D. Morse, Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot [Dkt. # 17–2] (“Morse Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–6. In March 2009, plaintiff was placed on administrative leave as a result of the pending untruthfulness charge. Moran Aff. ¶ 32.

In response to Chief Morse's referral, OPR Investigator Sergeant Shawn Huycke reviewed SSA Stonestreet's draft report, the notes of the interview taken by SSA Stonestreet and SSA DeWolfe, and the testimony of several witnesses, and he issued a report in April 2009. Truthfulness Investigation Rep. at 4. Investigator Huycke found that plaintiff told SSA Stonestreet that she had not made a comment about shooting SA Susak with a BB gun, but that two witnesses and SA Susak herself testified that plaintiff did make the statement. Id. at 3. Further, Investigator Huycke found that while plaintiff denied directing profanity at SA Susak during the Stonestreet interview, two witnesses confirmed that plaintiff had used profanity, and plaintiff herself subsequently acknowledged in her appeal to Officer Morse that she had cursed at SA Susak. Id. As a result, he determined by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff had committed a truthfulness violation by making false statements during the October 2008 interview. Id. Investigator Huycke has testified that he was not “told,” “directed,” or “instructed” by anyone to conclude that plaintiff had been untruthful, and that he was not “consulted by management officials who recommended that [he] so conclude.” Dep. of Shawn K. Huycke, Feb. 23, 2011, Ex. 7 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 17–7] at 157:5–22.

OPR then forwarded plaintiff...