Sharp v. Vilsack

1

RASHARI N'ZINGA SHARP, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-2393 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

November 3, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Rashari Sharp claims, pro se, that her co-workers and supervisors at the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated against her because of her disability, then retaliated when she reported that discrimination. All this Sharp claims, created a hostile work environment that led to her constructive discharge. The Court has already dismissed several counts of Sharp's Second Amended Complaint. See Mem. Order 11,^[1]ECF No. 52. The Department and the Secretary of Agriculture (collectively, “the Secretary”) now move for summary judgment on all remaining counts. There is no genuine dispute over any material fact and the Secretary is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. So the Court will grant his motion and dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

I.

From 2015 to 2018, Sharp worked as an entry-level Budget Technician in the Budget Branch of the Department's Rural Development Program. Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Mat.'l Facts (“SMF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 68-2. The Branch Chief, Melissa Gutridge, hired Sharp and eventually promoted her from a GS-5 level employee to GS-7 Id. ¶ 2. Sharp had three supervisors during her time at the Department: (1) Gutridge, who always served as Sharp's first-level supervisor except when Gutridge was detailed to another component between November 2017 and March 2018; (2) J.W. Wohlever, who filled in as Sharp's first-level supervisor during Gutridge's detail; and (3) Leslie Barrack, who always served as Sharp's second-level supervisor. Id. ¶¶ 3-5; see also Defs.' Ex. A at 2 ¶ 7, ECF No. 68-4. When Sharp joined the Department, none of these supervisors knew that she had a disability. Nor did they perceive her as having a disability. SMF ¶¶ 10-16.

As a Budget Technician, Sharp had three major responsibilities (1) organizing hardcopy folders of old and current budget allotments; (2) validating these files and posting them to SharePoint; and (3) accounting for all Rural Development program obligations for the previous fiscal year, down to the state level. Id. ¶¶ 19-20, 21-23. The first two responsibilities ensured analysts and accountants had ready access to allotments. Id. ¶¶ 20, 22. And the last one helped the Department complete the presidential budget process. Id. ¶ 23.

The time Sharp spent on these responsibilities ebbed and flowed throughout the year depending on the Department's needs. At the beginning of the year, for example, Sharp filed many allotments. Id. ¶ 26. But when the presidential budget process ramped up in the fall, Sharp shifted gears and spent more time accounting for Rural Development program obligations. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. As Sharp gained experience, Gutridge urged her to assume more responsibilities so that she could eventually become a Budget Analyst. Id. ¶¶ 29, 32.

Sharp claims, however, that continuous discriminatory harassment impeded her success. Six incidents prefaced her contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

First, Sharp lacked a desk phone for several months after she joined the Department. Id. ¶¶ 38, 40-41. Sharp “takes issue” with this onboarding frustration. Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mem.”) 7, ECF No. 73. But she does not dispute that a temporary halt in the procurement process caused the delay. SMF ¶¶ 39-41. And she concedes that another employee experienced a similar delay. Id. ¶ 43.

Second, the Department issued Sharp a LincPass keycard in January 2016 that did not function properly until two months later. Id. ¶¶ 44, 47. Sharp “surmise[s]” that the Department singled her out to receive a faulty keycard. Pl.'s Mem. 7. But she does not dispute that Gutridge advocated several times for Sharp's LincPass to be fixed. SMF ¶ 45. And she agrees the issues were resolved a few months later. Id. ¶ 47. The record contains no other evidence on the reasons for Sharp's faulty keycard.

Third, Sharp claims that Budget Analysts subjected her to a “discriminatory hostile work environment” when they “misfiled the folders” for which she was responsible. Pl.'s Mem. 1011. But Sharp testified that she did not have “any sense at all” why these incidents occurred. SMF ¶ 52. Nor does she dispute that Gutridge responded to these incidents by locking the allotment folders and instructing analysts to request them going forward. Id. ¶¶ 50-51.

Fourth, Sharp claims that Budget Analysts often sent her allotments with errors, which she had to send back for corrections. Pl.'s Mem. 18-19. She believes this back-and-forth process created “tension” with her coworkers, SMF ¶ 55, because they pestered her with their “complete lack of attention” and “deliberate recklessness,” Pl.'s Mem. 20. But Sharp agrees that office procedures required her to request corrections so that the analysts “could learn how to send allotments to [her] the right way.” SMF ¶¶ 53-54. And she agrees these incidents usually elicited “no more than a professional apology” from the analysts. Id. ¶ 56.

The one exception appears to be an incident that occurred in 2015 between Sharp and Budget Analyst Kaeren Parker. Id. ¶ 66. Sharp says Parker “yell[ed] at her” after Sharp informed her of a mistake on one of her allotments. Pl.'s Mem. 27-28. Sharp concedes, however, that Gutridge spoke to her and Parker after the incident. And Sharp agrees Parker told her she would treat her with “respect and honesty” moving forward. SMF ¶ 69.

Fifth, Sharp “saw mold on one of the files” she had to handle. Id. ¶ 57. Though she initially asked Gutridge for some gloves, she later told Gutridge that she planned to get them herself. Id. ¶¶ 58-59. Sharp made several more requests for gloves throughout her employment. Id. ¶¶ 60-65. And the Department always obliged these requests, unless Sharp alerted her supervisors that she had gotten gloves herself. Id. Sixth, Sharp received her first performance evaluation at the end of the 2016 fiscal year. Id. ¶ 73. In that review, Gutridge gave Sharp an “Exceeds” rating in three of the four performance categories. Id. ¶ 74. For customer service, however, Gutridge only rated her “Fully Successful.” Id.

No one at the Department knew Sharp had a disability when these incidents occurred.

Nor did anyone perceive Sharp as having a disability during this time. Id. ¶¶ 11-16. At her deposition, Sharp testified that any bullying by her co-workers “didn't have anything to do with [her] disability.” Id. ¶ 17. Sharp instead believed the bullying occurred because she was quiet, and her colleagues perceived her quietness as rudeness. Id. ¶ 18. As for her supervisors, none knew Sharp had any disability-or perceived her as having one-until they became involved in Sharp's EEO complaint process. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13, 15.

Sharp began the EEO complaint process on the heels of her less-than-perfect performance review. She contacted an EEO counselor for the first time on November 17, 2016. Id. ¶ 6. And she filed her first formal complaint of discrimination the following February. Id. She alleged the Department “subjected her to discrimination based upon her disability” when Gutridge gave her a “Fully Successful” rating instead of an “Exceeds” rating on her customer service metric. Defs.' Ex. F at 5, ECF No. 68-9. An EEO investigator then followed up with Gutridge, who then learned-for the first time-that Sharp had “a physical disability (allergy to mold)” and a “mental disability (traumatic brain injury).” Defs.' Ex. E at 6, ECF No. 68-8; see also SMF ¶ 11. Sharp's second-level supervisor, Barrack, similarly learned of Sharp's disability when she became involved in Sharp's EEO complaint process, although she “never learned what her disability was.” SMF ¶ 13. And Sharp's only other first-line supervisor, Wohlever, learned of Sharp's disability in May 2018 when he became involved in her EEO activity, although he too lacked knowledge of her exact disability. Id. ¶ 15; Defs.' Ex. G at 156, ECF No. 68-10. So all agree the earliest any supervisor knew of Sharp's disability was November 17, 2016, when Sharp initiated her EEO proceedings. See SMF ¶¶ 11-15.

Sharp used all her annual leave shortly after she filed her first formal EEO complaint. In April 2017, Sharp had accrued 95 hours of leave, with an expected year-end balance of 171 hours. Id. ¶ 96. By August, however, Sharp had zeroed out this balance. Id. Sharp often took leave on an ad hoc basis but never complied with the Department's unexpected leave policy. Id. ¶¶ 92, 93. The policy required employees to call their supervisor “within 1 hour of [their] start time the morning of the request.” Id. ¶ 84; see also id. ¶ 92. Yet Sharp sent emails or had another individual request leave on her behalf. Id. ¶ 93.

When Sharp's annual leave started running low in July 2017, she sought leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Id. ¶ 101. Sharp submitted her FMLA request to Gutridge in hardcopy form. Id. But because Sharp's component was in the middle of moving to a new office space, Gutridge took the form to the new office. Id. Upon arrival, Gutridge scanned the form and emailed it to Jeryl McDowell, a Labor Relations Specialist. Id. ¶¶ 98, 103. Gutridge sent the form to McDowell because Sharp failed to do so herself and had not reported to work for more than two weeks after giving Gutridge the form. Id. ¶ 104. Gutridge did not send Sharp's FMLA paperwork to anybody else. Id. ¶ 105.

When Gutridge reviewed the form, she found the physician's handwriting illegible and saw what appeared to be two people's handwriting. Id. ¶ 106. To correct these deficiencies,...