Ridgell v. Astrue

ARQUILLA RIDGELL

v.MICHAEL J. ASTRUE

Civil Action No. DKC 10-3280

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Dated: March 2, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for review in this employment discrimination case is a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. (ECF No. 6). The issues have been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The complaint is very confusing. This case appears to involve several confrontations between Plaintiff Arquilla Ridgell and her supervisors regarding her employment at the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Ms. Ridgell is an African-American woman who, since 2001 and until her termination, was employed as a Human Resources Specialist in the Program Development Branch, Division of Training and Human Resources, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review("DTHR"). (ECF No. 1 ¶ 4; ECF No. 13-1, Ridgell Decl., ¶ 1). Ms. Ridgell's direct supervisor was Christine Moser. (ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 2). Ms. Ridgell's second-line supervisor was Kathy Weaver, who reported to Randy Vanderpool, the director of DTHR. (Id. ¶ 3).

Ms. Ridgell suffers from anemia and hypertension. (Id. ¶ 57). Because of her health conditions, Ms. Ridgell requested a quiet workspace at the DTHR. (ECF No. 6-3, Def.'s Ex. 1A (Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") Hr'g Tr.), at 233-34). She acknowledges that Mr. Vanderpool made several attempts over time to accommodate her needs by moving her workspace to various locations in the office where the noise was expected to be lower. (See id. at 234-35). Over the years, Ms. Ridgell made several more requests, including to work from home, but Ms. Moser denied her requests for various reasons, such as for insufficient medical documentation. (ECF No. 13-1 ¶¶ 14, 17, 48, 59).

1. Ms. Ridgell's Complaints to Congress

The following facts regarding Ms. Ridgell's communications with Congress are taken in the light most favorable to Ms. Ridgell. From 2005 to 2009, Ms. Ridgell sent several complaints in writing, in person, and over the phone to various members of Congress. (Id. ¶ 4). These communications generally complained of "discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and various otherissues about SSA's mismanagement and abuses." (Id. ).¹ In 2008, Eileen McDaniel, the Associate Commissioner, told Ms. Ridgell through Ms. Ridgell's attorney to stop contacting members of Congress. (Id. ). On January 25, 2007, Mr. Vanderpool threatened to "discipline or terminate" Ms. Ridgell if she ever filed any complaints against him. (Id. ¶ 6). On September 28, 2007, Ms. Moser told Ms. Ridgell that she was aware of the complaints Ms. Ridgell had been making to Congress and that these complaints would be taken into account as part of her performance evaluation. (Id. ¶ 10). When Ms. Ridgell notified Mr. Vanderpool of Ms. Moser's intervention, Mr. Vanderpool convened a meeting at which he and Ms. Moser told Ms. Ridgell again not to contact Congress or else they would "discipline or terminate" her. (Id. ¶ 11). On October 30, 2007, Mr. Vanderpool wrote a negative performance evaluation based at least partly on Ms. Ridgell's complaints to Congress. (Id. ¶ 12). In another meeting that took place the next day, Mr. Vanderpool, Ms. Moser, and Ms. Weaver repeated to Ms. Ridgell their admonition not to contact Congress anymore. (Id. ¶ 13). Ms. Ridgell contacted Congress at least one more time on May 7, 2008, to complain that Ms. Moser was "harassing and retaliating"against her. (Id. ¶ 25). Ms. Ridgell also contacted Congress at least once regarding her requests for reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. (Id. ¶1 14).

2. The Excel Training Class and Ms. Ridgell's Thirty-Day Suspension

The parties agree that the events surrounding an Excel class that Ms. Ridgell was assigned to teach precipitated her thirty-day suspension. Their versions of these events, however, differ widely. Both versions will be recounted here.

a. Ms. Ridgell's Version

On or about April 9, 2008, Ms. Moser assigned Ms. Ridgell the task of teaching a training course on Microsoft Excel, which was to take place on June 25, 2008. (Id. ¶ 19; ECF No. 6-3, at 211).² Ms. Ridgell asked Ms. Moser for assistance in preparing the class, but Ms. Moser refused to help. (ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 20). On June 13, 2008, Ms. Moser told Ms. Ridgell that she scheduled a mock training class for Ms. Ridgell to present. (Id. ¶ 22). Ms. Ridgell responded by saying that she was not prepared and that she needed more time. (ECF No. 6-3, at 216). At some point, Ms. Ridgell suggested that the class be postponed orcancelled or that a contractor be hired to teach the class. (Id. at 218-19).

On June 24, 2008, Ms. Ridgell went to Ms. Moser to discuss the status of the Excel class. (Id. at 221). Ms. Moser told Ms. Ridgell that she did not want her to teach the class anymore. (Id. ). According to Ms. Ridgell, Ms. Moser "informed [Ms. Ridgell] that she was allowing a white person to deliver the training instead of [Ms. Ridgell] because regardless of how educated [Ms. Ridgell] was, she did not want a Nigger delivering any training and that Black people should not teach anything." (ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 38). Either that day or the next, Ms. Ridgell contacted the SSA's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") office to complain about Ms. Moser's comments. (Id. ¶ 16; ECF No. 6-3, at 222-23).

Shortly before the Excel class was supposed to take place, Ms. Moser asked Ms. Ridgell to provide her a list of the expected attendees for the course. (ECF No. 6-3, at 224-25).³ Ms. Ridgell responded that she did not have such a list. (Id. at 225). In an effort to comply, Ms. Ridgell gathered the registration forms, which were largely disorganized, and put together a list of attendees for Ms. Moser. (Id. at 227).

Kim Smith, a co-worker who did not teach a mock training course, ended up teaching the Excel class on June 25, 2008. (Id. at 231-32). Because of these events associated with the Excel class, Ms. Ridgell was suspended from work for thirty days. (ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 19).

b. Defendant's Version

In April 2008, Mr. Vanderpool emailed Ms. Moser to suggest that Ms. Ridgell be assigned the task of teaching an Excel class because of her familiarity with the program. (ECF No. 6-3, at 11-12). Ms. Ridgell was excited to teach the training course. (Id. at 12). Ms. Moser informed her that she would have to teach a mock training class as well. (Id. at 13).

Later, on June 13, 2008, when Ms. Moser reminded Ms. Ridgell of her obligation to teach a mock course, she refused. (Id. ). Ms. Ridgell also sent an email to Mr. Vanderpool stating that Ms. Moser was "putting additional stipulations on her teaching and putting obstacles in her way." (Id. at 14). She proposed either postponing the class or hiring a contractor to teach the class. (Id. ). Mr. Vanderpool responded via email that it was regular practice at the DTHR to deliver a mock training. (See id. ). He then convened a meeting with himself, Ms. Ridgell, Ms. Weaver, and Ms. Moser at which he directed Ms. Ridgell to teach the Excel class. (Id. at 15). Ms. Ridgell "stormed out of the office, saying that she wasn't going to doit. She raised her arms and just flailed her arms in the air and stomped out of the office and said she was not going to do it, and so she was going to cancel the class." (Id.). Mr. Vanderpool asked her to return to the meeting and directed her not to cancel the class. (Id. ). Ms. Ridgell "just stomped out and left." (Id.). Ms. Ridgell did not teach the mock course. (Id. at 19). Ms. Moser told her that because she did not teach the mock class, she would not be presenting the actual Excel class. (Id. ). Ms. Moser asked Ms. Smith and another co-worker, Susan Torres, to teach the class instead. (Id. ).

On June 20, 2008, Ms. Moser asked Ms. Ridgell to provide a list of the scheduled attendees for the Excel class so that name cards could be prepared ahead of time, but Ms. Ridgell said she did not have a list. (Id. at 20). Ms. Moser directed her to compile a list by the end of the day, which she did. (Id. ).

On June 24, 2008, Ms. Smith and Ms. Torres delivered a mock training session. (Id. at 19-20).

On June 25, 2008, the day of the Excel class, no one showed up to take the course. (Id. at 22). Ms. Moser and Ms. Weaver proceeded to contact the people on the attendee list that Ms. Ridgell had provided. (Id. ). They discovered that the putative participants on the list: (1) did not receive confirmation at all; (2) were told that the class would take place at a later date; or (3) did not exist. (Id. at 24). According to Ms.Moser, this list was a "bogus list." (Id. at 25). When confronted about the list, Ms. Ridgell explained that there must have been a "mix-up." (Id. at 26).

As a result of these events, Ms. Moser proposed suspending Ms. Ridgell for thirty days. (Id. at 11). For failing to follow supervisory instructions and lack of candor, Mr. Vanderpool approved the suspension. (Id. at 136, 143).

3. The Individual Development Plan, the Meetings of July 29 and 30, 2009, and Ms. Ridgell's Removal from Federal Service

The parties also agree that events surrounding a class that Ms. Ridgell was assigned to teach regarding an "Individual Development Plan" ("IDP") for the SSA as well as events that took place on July 29 and July 30, 2009, contributed to her termination from service. Their versions of these events again differ, both of which will be recited here.

a. Ms. Ridgell's Version

On July 1, 2009, Ms. Moser requested that Ms. Ridgell develop an employee information seminar regarding the IDP. (ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 19). Ms. Ridgell, however, was not familiar with the IDP. (Id. ¶ 29). Ms. Moser told Ms. Ridgell that she did not need any training regarding the IDP and that no formal training would be...