Stewart v. Dist. of Columbia

GEORGIA A. STEWART, Plaintiff v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant

Civil Action No. 17-495 (CKK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

September 9, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an age discrimination and retaliation case brought by a former employee of the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights ("OHR"). Plaintiff Georgia Stewart alleges that she was was discriminated against and ultimately terminated due to her age and in retaliation for an earlier discrimination complaint. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the District of Columbia under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII").

Before the Court is Defendant District of Columbia's [25] Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant claims that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's retaliation claim because Plaintiff has failed to establish causation between her 2013 discrimination complaint and her 2016 termination. Defendant further claims that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's age discrimination claim as Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that Defendant's legitimate reasons for terminating Plaintiff are pretextual and because Plaintiff's allegations of a hostile work environment do not state sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct.

Upon consideration of the pleadings,¹ the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion. As to Plaintiff's retaliation claim, the Court concludes that the almost three years separating Plaintiff's 2013 discrimination charge from her 2016 termination is too long a duration to infer causation. And, Plaintiff has produced no other evidence showing Defendant's proffered, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions to be pretext for retaliation. Next, considering Plaintiff's claim of age discrimination, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant's proffered, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions are pretextual, and Plaintiff has offered no evidence connecting Defendant's actions to age discrimination. Finally, in her Opposition to Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff provides no support for her hostile work environment claim, and the Court concludes that the claim fails as a matter of law.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Georgia Stewart began her employment at the OHR in 1967. Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 25 ("Def.'s Stmt."), at ¶ 2. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff was the Manager of the Mediation Unit at the OHR. Id. at ¶ 3.

In January 2013, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id. at ¶ 6. In her complaint, Plaintiff allegedthat her supervisor and then-Director of the OHR, Gustavo Valesquez, retaliated against her for previously engaging in a protected activity. Id. at ¶ 7.

In November of 2013, Monica Palacio became the Interim Director of the OHR and became the permanent Director in March 2014. Id. at ¶ 8. Upon her appointment as Interim Director, Ms. Palacio became Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Id. at ¶ 9.

In August 2015, Ms. Palacio submitted a request to the D.C. Department of Human Resources and obtained a 10% increase to Plaintiff's salary after Plaintiff informed Mr. Palacio that she had not received a raise in several years. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. Ms. Palacio also approved Plaintiff for a flexible work schedule. Id. at ¶ 12.

Ms. Palacio states that she began to observe performance issues with Plaintiff in early 2015 to early 2016. Def.'s Stmt., ECF No. 25, ¶ 13. As the Mediation Manager, Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining and updating information about mediations in the case management system called "MATS." Def.'s Stmt., ECF No. 25, ¶ 15. When a complaint of discrimination is received by OHR, the case goes through intake, mediation, and if necessary, investigation, legal review, and conclusion. Id. at ¶ 17. It is crucial that MATS is updated regularly with mediation information so that OHR's Investigations Unit knows if a case has been settled or if an investigation is needed. Id. at ¶ 20. Ms. Palacio determined that the failure to regularly update MATS resulted in inefficiencies in OHR's case management. Id. at ¶ 21. As a result, Ms. Palacio requested that Plaintiff update MATS with mediation information within 24-48 hours of mediation. Id. at ¶ 22. Plaintiff failed to consistently update MATS in the timely manner requested. Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff does not dispute this failure, but instead argues that updating MATS in accord with Ms. Palacio's request was not possible due to workload constraints. Pl.'s Res., ECF No. 32, ¶ 23.

Sometime in approximately 2015 or 2016, Plaintiff requested an additional administrative assistant to assist with the workload. Def.'s Stmt., ECF No. 25, ¶ 41. But, Ms. Palacio did not approve the request citing insufficient funds. Id. at ¶ 42. Additionally, Plaintiff already had a permanent administrative assistant. However, this permanent administrative assistant also provided coverage for the front desk on occasion. Id. at ¶¶ 43-44.

In addition to issues around MATS, Ms. Palacio further determined that Plaintiff demonstrated poor judgment and management of her staff. Id. at ¶ 26. As an example of such mismanagement, when a full-time staff mediator under Plaintiff's supervision resigned from the OHR, she informed Ms. Palacio that Plaintiff had not assigned her enough work. Id. at ¶ 27. Additionally, Ms. Palacio determined that Plaintiff was relying too heavily on contract mediators, rather than on staff mediators, costing the agency additional money. Id. at ¶ 28. And, Ms. Palacio also found that Plaintiff demonstrated poor judgment in hiring an unqualified individual as a staff mediator. Id. at ¶ 29. Plaintiff recommended that this individual be hired; however, serious problems emerged shortly after the hiring. Id. at ¶ 31. These problems included that the individual slept in his office, was disrespectful to Plaintiff, and could not use his computer. Id. at ¶ 32. When Ms. Palacio confronted Plaintiff about this individual, Plaintiff admitted that she could not manage him. Id. at ¶ 33. Ms. Palacio requested that Plaintiff prepare a memorandum about her concerns pertaining to this individual, and Ms. Palacio terminated the individual's employment on the basis of this information. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35.

Finally, Ms. Palacio determined that Plaintiff had difficulties attending management and staff meetings and behaving appropriately. Plaintiff failed to attend several regularly scheduled management and staff meetings or would arrive late. Id. at ¶¶ 36-37. Plaintiff contests Defendant's argument, explaining that she failed to attend these meetings due to participation inmediations. Pl.'s Res., ECF No. 32, ¶ 36. But, in Ms. Palacio's view, the failure to attend these meetings on time was inexcusable as the meetings were regularly scheduled for the first and second Tuesday of every month. Def.'s Stmt., ECF No. 25, ¶ 37. Additionally, when Plaintiff did attend meetings, she made unproductive and disrespectful comments. Id. at ¶ 38. As an example, when Ms. Palacio asked Plaintiff a question at a staff meeting with approximately 40 employees, Plaintiff replied, "I don't have to answer that." Id. at ¶ 39.

In a September 20, 2016 memorandum, Ms. Palacio recommended Plaintiff's termination. Id. at ¶ 56. In the memorandum containing detailed examples, Ms. Palacio requested termination based on (1) Plaintiff's failure and refusal to follow case processing guidelines; (2) Plaintiff's failure to attend management meetings or collaborate with other managers; and (3) Plaintiff's poor professional judgment and ineffective or wasteful management decisions. Id. at ¶ 57. Plaintiff was notified of her termination on September 30, 2016. Id. at ¶ 60. Plaintiff was replaced as Mediation Manager by an existing OHR employee who was over 40 years old. Id. at ¶¶ 61-62.

Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter on December 19, 2016. On March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. On November 6, 2017, Court dismissed Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and replaced the individual Defendants Plaintiff had sued with the proper Defendant, the District of Columbia. Nov. 6, 2017 Order, ECF No. 10. Following the Court's Order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and the parties engaged in discovery. On May 10, 2019, Defendant filed for summary judgment. Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment included a request that the Court strike or disregard seven exhibits relied upon by Plaintiff in her Opposition to Defendant's Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff did not produce such documents duringdiscovery. The Court ordered additional briefing so that Plaintiff would have the opportunity to respond to Defendant's allegation. As will be further explained below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff committed a discovery violation in failing to produce these documents and that the documents should be disregarded. See Supra Sec. III.A. However, throughout this opinion, where relevant, the Court considers Plaintiff's non-produced documents because they do not lead the Court to a different result.

In addition to the above factual background, the Court also notes the following three disputes of fact which the Court concludes are either not material or not genuine. First, Defendant states that, sometime in 2015, Ms. Palacio approved a television for Plaintiff's office. Def.'s Stmt., ECF No. 25, ¶ 12. Plaintiff disputes the fact that Ms. Palacio approved a television for her office and contends that she already had a television in her office. Pl.'s Res. to Def.'s Stmt. Of Undisputed Material Facts ("Pl.'s Res."), ECF No. 32, ¶ 12. The Court concludes that this factual dispute is immaterial as neither party relies on this fact as evidence proving or disproving retaliation or...