Thomas v. Dist. of Columbia

227 F.Supp.3d 88

Ayo M. THOMAS, Plaintiff,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 13–1551 (RDM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed December 30, 2016

Camilla C. McKinney, McKinney & Associates, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Stephanie Litos, Akua Damali Coppock, Shermineh C. Jones, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Ayo Thomas brings this action against her now-former employer, the District of Columbia, for alleged violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. ("FMLA"), and the District of Columbia Family Medical Leave Act, D.C. Code § 32–501 et seq. ("DCFMLA"). Thomas alleges that a month after approving her request for medical leave in October of 2012, the District terminated her employment and that, by doing so, the District: (1) interfered with her right to take protected medical leave and (2) retaliated against her for exercising her right to take protected medical leave. See Dkt. 1. The District moves for summary judgment on both the interference and retaliation claims, arguing that Thomas's dismissal was based on poor work performance, personality clashes with senior management, and the results of an internal ethics investigation, rather than her request for medical leave. See Dkt. 26. Thomas opposes the District's motion and cross-moves for summary judgment on her interference claims. See Dkt. 36. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the District's motion for summary judgment and will deny Thomas's cross-motion.

I. BACKGROUND

For the purpose of evaluating the District's motion for summary judgment, the following facts are construed in the light most favorable to Thomas, who is the nonmoving party. See Arrington v. United States , 473 F.3d 329, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

After several years of employment in the District's Office of the State Superintendent of Education, Thomas joined the District's Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services ("DYRS") in January of 2012 as the Human Resources Director. Dkt. 26–3 at 4–5. Thomas's position was at-will, Dkt. 33–9 at 132 (Pl.'s Dep.); Dkt. 26–2 (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 2), and her responsibilities included the daily oversight of "HR operational functions," the supervision of a seven-member human resources team, the "[d]evelop[ment] and implement[ation of] recruitment and workforce development plans," and the "[e]ffective[ ] resol [ution of] employee grievances," Dkt. 26–3 at 6; Dkt. 33–9 at 19–21, 34–35 (Pl.'s Dep.). In addition, Thomas assisted senior management in filling "high priority positions" within DYRS by creating and maintaining a "recruitment report" and by taking direct responsibility for the "day-to-day recruitment process." Dkt. 33–9 at 27, 33–34 (Pl.'s Dep.); Dkt. 34–3 at 3 (Shorter Dep. 38).

At the start of her employment with DYRS, Thomas's direct supervisor was Chief Operating Officer Christopher Shorter, Dkt. 33–9 at 35 (Pl.'s Dep.); Dkt. 26–3 at 7, who in turn reported to Neil Stanley, the Director of DYRS, Dkt. 26–2 at 3 (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 13). Shorter regularly let Thomas and her team "know that [they] were doing a good job" and gave Thomas "pretty good feedback," Dkt. 33–9 at 36 (Pl.'s Dep.); see also Dkt. 34–3 at 3, 8, 24–25 (Shorter Dep. 38, 43, 100, 102) (expressing "satisf[action]" with Thomas's "successful" work), but also discussed with Thomas "the urgency of continuing to fill the vacant positions" at DYRS, Dkt. 33–9 at 36–39 (Pl.'s Dep.); see also Dkt. 34–3 at 9–10 (Shorter Dep. 44–45). After Shorter moved to an "acting chief of staff role" in mid–2012, Regina Youngblood took over as Chief Operating Officer. Dkt. 33–9 at 39–40 (Pl.'s Dep.). Although Thomas's direct supervisor changed, her role and responsibilities did not. Id. at 109 (Pl.'s Dep.).

A. Thomas's Performance at DYRS in late–2012

Thomas was "never written up for any performance issues" while Youngblood was her supervisor. Dkt. 26–3 at 10; Dkt. 33–9 at 132, 212 (Pl.'s Dep.). Thomas did, however, receive some feedback from Youngblood and others at DYRS in email correspondence, most notably with respect to a "dashboard" project that required the ongoing submission of entries into a database. In late-August of 2012, for example, after Thomas told Youngblood that she would be unable to meet a deadline due to a "staff shortage," Youngblood responded that "two very important items ... now sit with you." Dkt. 41–1 at 2. A week later, Youngblood sent Thomas a second email asking whether Thomas had "made any progress on completing the file for updating the dashboard" and noting that "we are more than a week behind on our expected delivery date." Id. at 1. About a week later, Youngblood sent another email to Thomas, explaining that "[Stanley] ha[d] communicated his expectation that the dashboard is correct for Monday's report" and that, as they had "been working towards this goal for more than 4 weeks," it was "time to bring this project to a close." Dkt. 41–2 at 1. Presumably reflecting the ongoing nature of the project, Youngblood emailed Thomas, once again, several weeks later asking "[w]here are we on updating the dashboard numbers" and, once again, stressing the "vital" nature of the task and cautioning that it "must not fall behind again." Dkt. 41–3 at 1. But, notwithstanding concerns about timing, the work by Thomas's team was well-received. In mid-October 2012, Youngblood commended the HR team for its "[g]reat work," and a DYRS analyst "congratulate[d]" Thomas and her "team for the AWESOME job" they were "doing updating" the database. Dkt. 34–1 at 5–6.

Thomas's supervisors also expressed concern about her team's work with DYRS employees and candidates for open positions. In August of 2012, a member of Thomas's team inadvertently included a document containing confidential personnel information about one DYRS employee in a packet meant for another DYRS employee. See Dkt. 41–7 at 1–6. After this mistake was discovered, Youngblood assured the director of the D.C. Department of Human Resources that she had "spoken to ... Thomas[ ] about this serious oversight"; that "Thomas w [ould] be issuing a letter of admonition to" the offending team member; that "Thomas w[ould] ... put in place safeguards to ensure [that] this kind of error does not happened in the future"; and that Thomas would call the employee who received the confidential information "to apologize for the error and to reassure her of the safety and security of her medical information." Dkt. 41–7 at 1. Similarly, two months later, the same member of Thomas's team sent a document meant for clearance by DYRS's lawyer directly to the recipient, a "mishap" that Youngblood wrote was "very concerning." Dkt. 41–8 at 1. Youngblood informed Thomas that Stanley's document management "instructions were clear," and, although it was the team member who mistakenly sent the document, "the responsibility l[ay] with [Thomas] because the assignment [had been] given to [her] for completion." Id. And, in yet another email, Youngblood informed Stanley that she had "talked with ... [Thomas] about [her] failure to provide adequate contact and follow-up with respect" to an employment candidate. Dkt. 41–6 at 1.

Finally, another exchange of emails between Youngblood and Thomas revealed tension between Thomas and her supervisors.

In that exchange, Youngblood asked Thomas to remove an "[un]authorized" job posting, and Thomas responded that she had "discussed this" posting with Stanley. Dkt. 41–10 at 2. Thomas further told Youngblood that she would "not go back and forth" and that "[Stanley's] directive will be followed." Id. A few moments later, Youngblood responded:

This isn't a back and forth. As your supervisor I am requesting additional information; and if I request additional information I expect you to provide it to me. Your email below is hovering very close to insubordination. I would advise you to take care to monitor your tone in all communications.

Id. at 1. Thomas replied that she was "not sure how [her] email was interpreted as borderline insubordination" when she had ultimately "agreed to pull down the vacancy" and noted that her "email tone [w]as stemming from a place of frustration" with "receiving urgent directives from upper level management" that were "later retracted." Id.

B. Thomas's Relationship with Stanley

Early in Thomas's tenure at the agency, Stanley complimented Thomas's work and told her that "we're glad you're here." Dkt. 33–9 at 47–48, 127–128 (Pl.'s Dep.); Dkt. 34–1 at 1, 3. Over the course of her employment, however, Thomas came to see Stanley as "very intimidating" and "very hostile" and, as she explained, her "face to face" meetings with him "[were]n't always positive." Dkt. 33–9 at 48 (Pl.'s Dep.). At times, Stanley wanted Thomas to "bypass certain processes" to recruit new employees and, when Thomas informed him that the agency could not do so, Stanley would "yell[ ]" and tell her, "I don't care, get it done." Id. at 51 (Pl.'s Dep.). At other times, Thomas alleges, Stanley "would give [her] [an assignment]" but "wouldn't give [her] an opportunity" to complete the necessary work before "calling [her]" to check in on the status of the assignment. Id. at 65 (Pl.'s Dep.).

Tensions also arose when Thomas briefly experimented with an alternative work schedule. While working from home on her alternative schedule, Thomas received a call from Stanley, who was "yelling about an employee who did not receive [his or her] reassignment letter." Id. at 60–63 (Pl.'s Dep.). After Thomas confirmed that the employee had, in fact, received the letter, Stanley "recommended that [Thomas] stop" using an alternative work schedule and that she "focus on building [her] HR department." Id. at 62–63 (Pl.'s Dep.). Thomas, in turn, told Stanley that she was on her first day under the alternative work schedule and that her then-supervisor, Chris Shorter, had...