Scaife v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

504 F.Supp.3d 893

Elaine SCAIFE, Plaintiff,

v.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, and Robert Wilkie in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-02853-TWP-TAB

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Signed November 30, 2020

Joseph E. Allman, Allman Law LLC, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.

Jackson Taylor Kirklin, Lara K. Langeneckert, United States Attorney's Office, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, pro se.

ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and Robert Wilkie in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (collectively, the "VA") (Filing No. 34 ). Plaintiff Elaine Scaife ("Ms. Scaife") sued the VA for claims of "Racially/Sexually Hostile Work Environment," "Illegal Retaliation," and "Constructive Discharge" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Filing No. 1 at 1, 6, 7–8). In response, the VA moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants the VA's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 34 ).

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the facts are presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. See Zerante v. DeLuca , 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Beginning in July 2010, Ms. Scaife, an African American woman, worked at the Roudebush VA Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana, ("Roudebush"), as a human resources specialist focusing on job classification, (Filing No. 34-2 at 2; Filing No. 34-1 at 12 ). She teleworked and was assigned to work in the office three days per week and worked from home two days. (Filing No. 34-1 at 17-18 ). In her "classifier" role, she was tasked with determining the title, series, grade, and pay for jobs at Roudebush (Filing No. 34-1 at 13 ). Brian Fogg ("Chief Fogg"), a white male, was the Chief of the Police Service at Roudebush, id. at 37. In his position, Chief Fogg was in top management and reported directly to the Assistant Medical Director. (Filing No. 40-2.) In the fall of 2015, Chief Fogg asked Ms. Scaife, who he had no supervisory power over, to approve Captain Roman Holowka ("Captain Holowka") for a Criminal Investigator position at a GS-11 grade, (Filing No. 34-8 at 2; Filing No. 34-1 at 37–39). After reviewing criteria for the position, Ms. Scaife determined that the role legally should be classified at the lower GS-7 grade due to the scope of responsibilities for the position. Id. at 39–40. Following email exchanges with Ms. Scaife, Chief Fogg met with Captain Holowka and Brian Blocker ("Officer Blocker") on a different matter on a weekend morning (Filing No. 34-3 at 9–16). Chief Fogg had previously informed Captain Holowka of the GS-11 grade for his new role. At this meeting, Captain Holowka asked whether a decision had been rendered for his new Criminal Investigator position. Id. at 18. When he was informed that it had not been approved, Captain Holowka asked why. Id. Chief Fogg responded "[b]ecause [Ms. Scaife] is a stupid fucking nigger that's what she does, she likes to fuck with people, I'm fucking pissed about it." (Filing No. 34-5.) Taken aback, Captain Holowka asked Officer Blocker to leave the room and demanded an apology. (Filing No. 34-3 at 19.) Chief Fogg, expressed regret for the remark, attributing it to his agitation with what he perceived to be an impediment to him creating a better department. Id. at 19–20, 23; Filing No. 34-5. He promised Captain Holowka that he would never use the word again. (Filing No. 34-5.) Captain Holowka then excused himself from the office and told Officer Blocker that what had transpired "was wrong and is not tolerated." Id. Because the meeting had taken place over the weekend, no one else heard the dialogue. (Filing No. 34-3 at 20–21.) Thinking it was a one-time, stress-induced occurrence, Captain Holowka took no immediate further action since this was the first—and last—time he ever directly heard Chief Fogg use this type language. Id. at 24, 25–26.

Sometime between 2015 and 2016 Gavin Earp ("Mr. Earp"), a white male, became Ms. Scaife's immediate supervisor. (Filing No. 34-1 at 18–19.) In August 2016, Ms. Scaife was accosted so loudly by Mr. Earp that a co-worker across the hall overheard "the loud conversation" and emailed Ms. Scaife to see if she "need[ed] help." (Filing No. 34-2 at 3; Filing No. 34-13 at 6; Filing No. 34–14.) This same co-worker testified, however, that these types of interactions were not uncommon for Mr. Earp, who "might start an argument" over work-related matters with both men and women alike. (Filing No. 34-13 at 9–12.) Ms. Scaife, however, noticed throughout her employment, that her fellow classifier Orlando Sellers ("Mr. Sellers"), an African American man, received better treatment from Mr. Earp. (Filing No. 34-1 at 22–23, 72.) For example, though Mr. Earp "was unhappy with [Mr. Sellers’] job performance, [he] never addressed it with him." (Filing No. 34-2 at 13.) And while Ms. Scaife "had to send [her] work for review, ... [Mr. Sellers] did not have to." Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).

Approximately a year later, Mr. Earp told Ms. Scaife that Roudebush's classifications were receiving heightened scrutiny from upper management, and all classifications would now need to be routed through him for final approval. (Filing No. 34-15 at 1–2.) Though classifiers had been very independent to that point, Mr. Earp insinuated in a group meeting that they needed to be "more flexible, and less bureaucratic with [their] classification determinations." (Filing No. 34-2 at 3 (emphasis in original).) Because Ms. Scaife questioned how she could increase her flexibility in classifying roles considering the narrow federal authorities under which she operated, she felt that Mr. Earp was "implying that [she] should break the law." Id. ; Filing No. 34-1 at 79–80. When pushed on this point, Mr. Earp "got loud again," telling the group that if he refused directives to break policy, he would face discipline. Id. at 75–76. Ms. Scaife interpreted this as a "subliminal" threat that she too would face discipline if she refused to follow an order she felt broke policy or the law. Id. at 76. In an "ironic and strange" twist, that very same day, a classifier at a different VA facility sent an email received by Ms. Scaife and Mr. Earp with an article attached titled "No, You Probably Shouldn't Follow Every Order from Your Boss." (Filing No. 34-16 at 1.) Mr. Earp—after responding to the email with a link to an article titled "Federal Court: Agencies Can Punish Employees for Refusing to Break Rules," id. —’admitted’ in an instant message to Ms. Scaife that he believed she had instigated the sending of the other email, Filing No. 34-1 at 90. After she denied any involvement, Mr. Earp dropped the issue. Id. at 90–91.

Roughly a month later, Mr. Earp asked Ms. Scaife to classify a position "for his friend at another [VA] facility." Id. at 94; Filing No. 34-23 at 1. After she classified the position lower than he would have liked—and after he had announced that he would be leaving Roudebush the next month for new employment in Colorado (Filing No. 34-28 at 1–2)—Mr. Earp "became enraged, hostile, and began yelling and accused [her] of breaking the law." (Filing No. 34-19 at 1.) Mr. Earp told Ms. Scaife that "what [she] had just done is something that an inexperienced classifier would do." She interpreted his accusations as "demeaning" and "belittling [her] abilities" as a classifier. (Filing No. 34-1 at 70.) Mr. Earp then "stormed out" of the office, only to return a few minutes later to yell at Ms. Scaife again. (Filing No. 34-19 at 1.) When she encountered a co-worker moments later, Ms. Scaife expressed that Mr. Earp "must have lost his mind[,] going off on me for doing my job." (Filing No. 34-2 at 8.) Discussing the classification the next day over email, Ms. Scaife told Mr. Earp that she was "shocked and extremely disappointed" in how he had treated her. (Filing No. 34-20 at 1.) When another classifier, who was a white man, confirmed the classification decision, Mr. Earp "threatened" him by saying that he too "was doing something illegal." (Filing No. 34-22 at 7, 15–16, 18.) This classifier confirmed that, over his 32-year career, he had been "told many times, many times to do something that [he felt] wasn't legal" by various people. Id. at 6.

The day after the incident, Ms. Scaife discussed the encounter with the Roudebush Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") officer. Ms. Scaife commenced EEO activity concerning the hostile environment caused by Mr. Earp's conduct on September 20, 2016. (Filing No. 34-2 at 8.) At the same time, she shared her concerns through numerous text messages to Mr. Earp's direct supervisor, human resources officer Chari Weddle ("Ms. Weddle"), a white woman (Filing No. 34-2 at 14; Filing No. 34-1 at 106 ). Though she was out of town and in meetings for work, Ms. Weddle eventually responded that, while Mr. Earp had authority to direct Ms. Scaife to act, Ms. Scaife could "choose not to follow his direction" if she felt she was being asked to violate the law. (Filing No. 34-23 at 2.)

After investigating the matter further, Ms. Weddle determined in a formal counseling email that Ms. Scaife had "injected [her] personal opinion" into the classification dispute with Mr. Earp, which, Ms. Weddle resolved, had "clouded [Ms. Scaife's] professional judgment." (Filing No. 34-27 at 1 (emphasis in original).) And by sending Ms. Weddle numerous text messages when she knew she was out of...