Tarquinii v. Toro

1

JAWAN N. TARQUINII, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-1567 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 26, 2024

Re Document Nos.: 60, 72

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Granting Defendant'S Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Defendant'S Motion to Seal

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff Jawan Tarquinii sues Carlos Del Toro, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy (the “Agency”). Although Tarquinii's complaint does not list out discrete counts, so far as the Court can tell, Tarquinii alleges that she was discriminated against based on her race, sex, religion, and disability, that she was subjected to retaliation for protected activity, that she was denied a reasonable accommodation for her disability that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that she was denied due process rights. See Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1. Before the Court is the Agency's motion for summary judgment (“Def.'s MSJ”), ECF No. 60. Tarquinii has filed a brief in opposition to the Agency's motion, see Pl.'s Resp. Opp'n Def.'s MSJ (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 65, and the Agency has filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, see Reply Supp. Def.'s MSJ (“Def.'s Reply”), ECF No. 71. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Agency's motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

Tarquinii, an African American woman who identifies as Catholic, previously worked at the Marine Corps Air Station in Iwakuni, Japan, where she served, first, as the Human Resources Deputy Director, and then as Chief of Human Resources, for Marine Corps Community Services (“Community Services”). See Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15-16. While employed with Community Services, Tarquinii's first-line supervisor was Robert Johnston and her second line supervisor was John Iwaniec. See id. ¶¶ 5-6; see also Def.'s MSJ, Ex. 1 at 109 (depicting organizational chart).^[1]

In 2015, Johnston issued Plaintiff a negative mid-year performance evaluation with an accompanying Letter of Caution. See Def.'s MSJ, Ex. 1 at 138. After Tarquinii asked for a review of Johnston's decision, Iwaniec adjusted Tarquinii's evaluation to reflect that she “Meets Expectations,” while continuing to express some reservations about Tarquinii's work. Id. at 133. Around this time, allegations began to surface that Tarquinii had engaged in nepotism by improperly influencing Community Services to hire her husband and her brother. See id., Ex. 16 at 5-15, 18-19, 22-23, ECF No. 63-8.^[2]

a. Inspector General Investigation

The allegations of misconduct were referred by the Office of the Inspector General to Investigator Carl D. Hodges for investigation. See id., Ex. 1 at 150. Hodges was assisted by Carlos Saldana, the Human Resources Chief at Marine Corps Installation Pacific-Marine Corps Base Camp Butler, in Okinawa, Japan. See Def.'s MSJ at 4. Hodges's final report for the Office of the Inspector General concluded that Tarquinii had improperly advocated for, and participated in, her husband and brother's hiring in violation of Community Services personnel policies and federal law. See id., Ex. 1 at 155-167, ECF No. 63-2. The report further concluded that Tarquinii should have recused from any involvement in the hiring of her husband and brother but failed to do so. See id. The Inspector General report was supported by extensive and robust evidence, including statements by thirteen employees who worked with Tarquinii. See id. at 152-153.

b. Reasonable Accommodation Request

Around the time of the investigation, Tarquinii submitted a reasonable accommodation request from her doctor that would allow her to have a reduced and more flexible work schedule, including some telework, for two months. See id., Ex. 14 at 2, ECF No. 60-17. Tarquinii's request was formally approved, though Tarquinii asserts that in practice she was not permitted to have full use of that accommodation. See id. at 3; id., Ex. 1 at 17-18, ECF No. 60-4. Later, Tarquinii's doctor recommended that Tarquinii's accommodation be extended for a full year. See id., Ex. 15 at 2-3, ECF No. 60-18. Given Community Services' new policy for accepting accommodation requests, it requested that Tarquinii resubmit her extended accommodation request. See id., Ex. 1 at 19, ECF No. 60-4; Def.'s Reply at 7 (“It is further undisputed that the policy for approving reasonable accommodation requests changed at some point after Plaintiff's first reasonable accommodation request in July 2015, which required Plaintiff to resubmit her second reasonable accommodation request according to that new policy.”).

c. Termination & Appeals Process

Before Tarquinii resubmitted her reasonable accommodation request however, her supervisors issued her a proposed termination letter, and eventually terminated her employment. See Def.'s MSJ, Ex. 1 at 19. Both the notice of proposed termination and Tarquinii's termination letter explained that Tarquinii's misconduct, as found in the Inspector General Report, was the reason for her termination. See id., Ex. 1 at 30-31, 39-41.

Tarquinii then filed an appeal of her termination with the Commanding Officer at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Colonel Boucher. See id. at 42. Colonel Boucher appointed a hearing officer to help coordinate the appeal process and schedule an appeal hearing. See id., Ex. 8, ECF No. 60-11. However, Tarquinii waived her right to an appeal hearing and requested a decision on the written submissions by the parties to the appeal, instead. See id. Ultimately, Colonel Boucher upheld the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment after finding that there was “substantial evidence to support the conclusion that [Tarquinii] violated rules prohibiting nepotism and actual or apparent conflicts of interest on multiple occasions by the actions [she] took in connection with the employment of [her] husband and [her] brother.” Id. at 2-3. Tarquinii then filed a second-level appeal with Marine Corps Headquarters. See id., Ex. 9 at 23, ECF No. 60-12. At that stage, the Director of the Business and Support Services Divisions at Marine Corps Headquarters, Cindy Whitman Lacy, issued a final decision upholding the decision to terminate Tarquinii's employment with Community Services. See id.

d. Equal Employment Opportunity Counseling

After her termination, but while her appeal was pending, Tarquinii initiated Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Counseling. See id., Ex. 1 at 74-75, ECF No. 60-4. In 2016, Tarquinii submitted a formal EEO Complaint alleging that the Agency had discriminated against her based on her race, gender, religion, disability, and as reprisal for prior protected activity when it terminated her employment and when it upheld her termination. See id. at 6. Tarquinii's formal EEO complaint further alleged that the Agency had retaliated against her based on her prior EEO activity by interfering with her selection for employment with the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Government Publishing Office. See id. Tarquinii later amended her formal EEO Complaint to add another retaliation claim for her non-selection to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. See id., Ex. 27 at 3, ECF No. 60-30. After her second-level appeal, Tarquinii further amended her formal EEO Complaint to allege that the Agency had discriminated and retaliated against her by denying that appeal. See id., Ex. 28 at 2, ECF No. 6031. In 2019, after the Agency sought summary judgment on Tarquinii's EEO complaint, Tarquinii attempted to amend her formal EEO complaint yet again to add claims for the denial of reasonable accommodations and the creation of a hostile work environment. See id., Ex. 34 at 68, ECF No. 60-37. The EEO administrative judge denied the request to amend because Tarquinii raised her reasonable accommodation and hostile work environment claims for the first time only in her response to the Agency's motion for summary judgment and had previously disclaimed any reasonable accommodation or hostile work environment claim. See id. at 7 (“Complainant told the Agency from the get go that she sought no relief related to reasonable accommodation or hostile work environment and that those allegations were offered as background only.”). The EEOC administrative judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency, and the Agency adopted that decision. See id. at 21.

e. Complaint in District Court

Having lost her case at the agency-level, Tarquinii filed her case in this Court. See generally Compl. Although Tarquinii was represented by counsel in her appeal proceedings with the Agency and before the EEOC administrative judge, she is proceeding Pro se before this Court. See id.; see also Def.'s MSJ, Ex. 34 at 22, ECF No. 60-37; id., Ex. 1 at 3, ECF No. 60-4; id. at 74; id., Ex. 9 at 4, ECF No. 60-12. So far as the Court can tell, Tarquinii alleges the following claims: (1) that the Agency discriminated against her by denying her a reasonable accommodation; (2) that she was discriminated against based on protected characteristics (race, sex, religion, disability) when the Agency terminated her; (3) that the Agency further discriminated against her by upholding her termination on administrative appeal; (4) that the Agency retaliated against her for protected activity by terminating her; (5) that the Agency retaliated against her by upholding her termination on administrative appeal; (6) that the Agency retaliated against her by interfering with her employment at other employers; (7) that the Agency discriminated against her by creating a hostile work environment; and (8) that the Agency deprived her of her rights under the Due Process clause. See Compl. at 1-2; see also Def.'s MSJ, Ex. 27 at 2-3, ECF ...