Muse v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

1

LISA MUSE, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-00407 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

November 14, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Plaintiff Lisa Muse brought this action under Title VII against her former employer, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). She alleges that her old supervisor discriminated against her on the basis of sex and retaliated against her for reporting him. More, he subjected her to a hostile employment environment.

The parties finished discovery, and WMATA now moves for summary judgment. The Court will grant that motion. Muse has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact for any of her allegations. The evidence she cites to show WMATA's explanations are pretextual cannot bear the weight she wants it to. And she has offered no proof that her workplace was pervasively discriminatory or intolerable. Instead, the record leads to one reasonable conclusion: Muse was repeatedly admonished and ultimately terminated because of many instances of misconduct and unprofessionalism. For that Title VII provides no remedy.

I.

After sixteen good years working for WMATA, Lisa Muse started to hit some road bumps. She was having issues with her direct supervisor, Keith Sanders. Muse Depo., ECF No. 17-15 28:13-15; 54:13-6. He had been her immediate supervisor for roughly a year, and the two had seen their fair share of spats. Muse Depo. 26:18-21. So she reached out to an administrator in the General Manager's Office, Kevin Coyne. Muse Depo. 74:1-8. She had received the tip to contact Coyne from a colleague who had previously filed a complaint against Sanders. Muse Depo 73:13-22; Determination Ltr., ECF No. 17-16, at 1. Ultimately, the discussions between Muse and Coyne were kept private; Coyne did not refer her complaint to WMATA's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO). Muse Depo. 74: 9-13.

But tensions between Muse and Sanders simmered. So Muse contacted Carla Elliot, the manager of the WMATA's OEEO office, on October 28, 2021. Jewel Bell Depo., ECF No. 193, 36:15-18. They discussed Muse's dissatisfaction with Sanders' leadership. But Muse admits that she did not tell Elliot that Sanders was treating her differently because she was a woman. Muse Depo., 88:8-11. Instead, she “indicated that [she felt] that Keith Sanders, Service Director, ha[d] singled [her] out and targeted [her] through accusatory emails and engag[ed] [her] subordinate Assistant Superintendents instead of [her].” Ex. 3, ECF 17-4. A follow-up email from Elliot to Muse confirms what they discussed in their conversation. Elliot recapped: “When asked if it was your perception that the negative treatment was because of or motivated by any protected category, you indicated it was not your perception.” Ex. 3. Elliot accordingly directed the complaint to employee relations, finding it was more in their wheelhouse. Ex. 3. So Muse filed a complaint with the employee relations office a couple of days later, on November 1. Muse Depo. 52:4-20. The complaint was not pursued. Discrimination Charge, ECF 17-2.

Meanwhile, the relationship between Muse and Sanders soured further. On November 10, Sanders issued Muse a written warning (“Written Warning”). Written Warning, ECF No. 176. The purpose of this was to “document [Muse's] performance issues since July 2021.” Written Warning at 1. Sanders listed his “areas of concerns in [Muse's] overall management of the Montgomery (MOTR) Bus Transportation Division.” Written Warning at 1. He grouped these areas of concern under five broad headings: “Sense of Urgency/Accountability”; “Teamwork”; “Integrity”; “Respect”; and “Commitment.” Written Warning at 1-4.

For “Sense of Urgency/Accountability,” Sanders noted that Muse agreed to finish a spreadsheet by a specific deadline but failed to do so. Written Warning at 1. Sanders thus completed a portion of the spreadsheet himself and gave Muse an extension. Written Warning at 1. But still, Muse did not complete the assignment in time. Written Warning at 1. So Sanders finished it, employing some of Muse's subordinates to help. Written Warning at 1. The next week, Muse approved vacation leave for both of her assistants although she would be in training during that time. Written Warning at 1. Muse lacked “an effective plan to manage the division” during her absence. Written Warning at 1.

Sanders then highlighted Muse's failure to investigate a major bus accident. Written Warning at 1. He noted she failed to report to the scene, as she was out of the area that day. Written Warning at 1. And she did not produce accurate data to aid the later investigation of the accident. Written Warning at 2. More, amid the investigation, Muse “request[ed] an unscheduled/unplanned vacation leave . . . due to a family emergency,” although she told another employee it was “because of stress.” Written Warning at 2. Sanders claimed Muse “neglected to brief [her] staff on pertinent matters in [her] absence” and “failed to enter leave even after [she was] directed to do so.” Written Warning at 2.

Sanders then described her deficiencies in the “Teamwork” and “Integrity” categories. Written Warning at 2. She failed to brief her proxy for the accident investigation during her unscheduled leave. Written Warning at 3. And she neglected to comply with an audit. Written Warning at 3. He also discussed three different unplanned absences that occurred over about two months. Written Warning at 3.

Under the “Respect” heading, Sanders alerted Muse to some of Muse's direct subordinates' concerns. Written Warning at 3. He wrote that her staff “does not feel adequately briefed on high-level nor routine activities”; that they do not believe they should “escalate concerns” to Muse as she “may not have the answer”; that they “do[] not feel properly trained on the activities to which [she] assign[s] them”; and that Muse “fail[s] to share in the workload assigned to [her] staff.” Written Warning at 3.

Finally, Sanders listed some clear expectations moving forward under the “Commitment” category. Written Warning at 4. He wanted to see that Muse could “delegate and organize to ensure tasks are completed timely”; that her staff was “briefed and underst[ood] expectations in [her] absence”; and that she “improve[d] the tracking and communication of high-level incidents.” Written Warning at 4. He also noted that she needed to comply with the proper process for requesting sick leave in the future. Written Warning at 4. He concluded by saying that he was “committed to providing [her] support to be successful in [her] current role.” Written Warning at 4.

Muse recounts this Written Warning differently. She characterizes the warning as “admonish[ing] Plaintiff for failing to timely [submit] a spreadsheet.” Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n, ECF No. 19, at 9. And she claims it “unreasonably admonished [her] for being out of town while off duty when an unexpected accident happened.” Id. She asserts that her reason for failing to submit the spreadsheet on time was because she was short staffed. Muse Depo., 97:3-6. But she admits that she should have gone to the bus accident. Muse Depo., 107: 11-13.

After the Written Warning, things would only go downhill. Two weeks later, Muse was suspended for five days without pay. Ltr. of Suspension, ECF No. 17-7. Sanders detailed the reasons for the suspension in a memorandum that “conclude[d] an investigation into compliance with COVID-19 Compliance procedures and the truthfulness of statements made by [Muse] into those matters.” Ltr. of Suspension at 1. The memo found that one of Muse's subordinates was noncompliant with vaccination requirements. Ltr. of Suspension at 1. When the subordinate came to work without his vaccination card, Muse “deviated from the procedure by granting [the operator] vacation leave.” Ltr. of Suspension at 1. A representative from WMATA's labor department asked Muse about the operator's compliance and presence at work. Ltr. of Suspension at 1-2. Muse responded that the operator was not at work but failed to notify the representative that she had given the operator vacation leave. Ltr. of Suspension at 2. The representative therefore presumed that the operator was scheduled off, although he had not been. Ltr. of Suspension at 2.

The next day, Muse “deviated from the procedure again when [she] permitted [the operator] to return to work without uploading his alleged vaccination card denoting that he was fully vaccinated.” Ltr. of Suspension at 2. When asked whether the operator had complied with the vaccination requirements, Muse informed the Vice President of WMATA that he was fully vaccinated and provided a card to prove it. Ltr. of Suspension at 2. But this statement was later found to be untruthful, as Muse “had not verified that he had uploaded his vaccination card.” Ltr. of Suspension at 2. Further, Sanders noted that Muse's division had “conflated and inflated” certain data. Ltr. of Suspension at 3. He concluded that Muse's data “tends to be inaccurate and the integrity of the data to be compromised.” Ltr. of Suspension at 3.

Muse describes the reason she was suspended a bit differently. She recounts that Sanders suspended her “because [she] gave one of [her] bus operators leave to go home to get his COVID vaccine card and to bring it back to the division.” Muse Depo., 114:1-3. And she insists that she verified the operator's vaccination status before letting him clock back in. Muse Depo. 123:17-22.

Muse served her suspension then returned to work. Things would stay quiet for about a month, when Muse received a Coaching Memorandum from Sanders. Muse Depo., 124:14-18. This was a “non-disciplinary recap and closure” for the events...