Vick v. Brennan

ELLA D. VICK, Plaintiff, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14-cv-2193 (TSC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

April 6, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Ella Vick alleges sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 633a (the "ADEA") and interference and retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (the "FMLA").

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that her rights were violated under Title VII, the FMLA, and the ADEA and she seeks to enjoin Defendant Megan Brennan from discriminating against other employees under Title VII and from violating the FMLA. (ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 50(A), 50(B), 50(E).) She also seeks compensatory damages, back and front pay, lost benefits, reinstatement into her position, and court fees, costs, and expenses. (Id. ¶¶ 50(C), 50(E)-(H).)

By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 28, 2016, this court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 11 ("Mem. Op.") at 12.) By order dated June 1, 2016, the court then referred the parties to Magistrate Judge Harvey for mediation, but attempts to settle this case were unsuccessful. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant has now moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 29 ("Def. MSJ").) For the reasons stated below, the motion will be DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2011, Plaintiff worked as a Manager of Distribution Operations ("MDO") at the Joseph Curseen-Thomas Morris facility ("JCTM") of the United States Postal Service ("USPS"). (ECF No. 31-2 ("Stmnt. Mat. Facts") ¶¶ 1, 5.) Plaintiff's supervisor was Wendy McLlwain, who worked as a Plant Manager and supervised three other MDOS: Sherrod Stanard, Lonzine Wright, and Rosetta Watkins. (ECF No. 31-1, Ex. B ("McLlwain Dep.") 10:7-16; Stmnt. Mat. Facts ¶ 5.)

A. Performance Evaluations

Although the performance evaluation process was not explicitly explained in the Statement of Material Facts, the court is able to glean that the four MDOs were evaluated at the end of each fiscal year. During the evaluation process, the MDO would provide a self-evaluation and the supervisor would rate the MDO's performance on a scale which ranged from Non-Contributor (unsatisfactory work performance) to Exceptional Contributor (above satisfactory work performance). Per the FY 2011 performance evaluations in the record, McLlwain recommended the following ratings: (1) Stanard - Contributor, (2) Wright - Contributor, (3) Watkins - Non-Contributor, and (4) Plaintiff - Non-Contributor. (ECF No. 31-1, Ex. F; Ex. H, ROI 134-37, 150-54.)

The parties dispute the timing and validity of Plaintiff's FY 2011 performance evaluation. Defendant directs the court to McLlwain's declaration and testimony that she notified Plaintiff of her Non-Contributor performance rating on November 1, 2011 and subsequently enteredPlaintiff's evaluation in 2011. (Stmnt. Mat. Facts ¶ 2.) Plaintiff points to evidence suggesting that McLlwain did not enter the performance rating until December 2012. (Id.) She also claims that Stanard received his Contributor ratings in FY 2011 because McLlwain was involved in an intimate personal relationship with him and favored him over Plaintiff during performance reviews. (Id. ¶ 10.)

B. Vick's FMLA leave

In March 2012, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave to care for her mother in North Carolina. (ECF No. 31 ("Pl. Opp. MSJ.") at 7; ECF No. 31, Ex. C at 57-60.) McLlwain granted Plaintiff's request for an undetermined period of FMLA leave on April 12, 2012. (ECF No. 31, Ex. C at 61.) While Plaintiff was on leave, she and McLlwain had weekly conversations about Plaintiff's family situation. (ECF No. 5, Ex. 8 ¶ 7.)

On May 16, 2012, McLlwain sent Plaintiff a Return to Duty/Letter of Intent ("Letter of Intent") stating that she had an "unsubstantiated absence of duty since March 15, 2012," and would be considered absent without leave and subject to disciplinary action if she did not report to work or provide additional medical documentation justifying her absence. (ECF No. 31, Ex. A, at 8-9.) Despite the fact that Plaintiff was already on FMLA, the Letter of Intent invited her to apply for FMLA leave, stating "I have also included Family Medical Leave (FMLA) Form WH-380, if you feel your absence may be covered under FMLA." (Id. at P9.)

Defendant alleges that McLlwain sent the Letter of Intent only because Plaintiff had not told McLlwain when she would be coming back to work. (ECF No. 29 ("Def. MSJ") at 27.) Plaintiff alleges, however, that she contacted McLlwain and requested an extension of her leave while still on leave, and that McLlwain denied her request. (See Pl. Opp. MSJ at 14 (citing ECF No. 8-2, Ex. C ("Decl. Ella Vick June 29, 2015") ¶ 10.)) It is unclear when Plaintiff returned towork. (Pl. Opp. MSJ at 7.) Plaintiff's mother passed away "approximately a week" after Plaintiff returned to work, and Plaintiff took a period of bereavement leave, which does not appear to have been authorized under FMLA. (Id.)

On July 20, 2012, McLlwain issued Plaintiff a Letter of Warning in Lieu of 7-day Time-Off Suspension ("Letter of Warning") for work infractions occurring between June 15-July 13, 2012, while she was on bereavement leave. Plaintiff filed a grievance with her union representative protesting the Letter of Warning (ECF No. 31-1, Ex. B, P241), which was later rescinded by the USPS Area Manager for Human Resources, who concluded that Vick was on leave during the time that the infractions allegedly occurred. (ECF No. 31-1, Ex. A at P14.)

C. Reduction in Force Letters

In late 2012, at the beginning of FY 2013, USPS headquarters notified employees, via a general reduction in force ("RIF") letter, that it was seeking to reduce workload and staffing by better aligning staffing levels with projected mail volume. (ECF No. 31-1, Ex. A at P13.) The letter further advised that affected employees would receive an additional, specific RIF letter. (Id.)

On January 2, 2013, Plaintiff received a specific RIF letter stating that she would be released from her position and terminated from the USPS effective March 8, 2013. (ECF. No. 31-2 ("Pl. Resp. Und. Facts") at ¶ 7.) Watkins also received a specific RIF letter indicating that she would be terminated on March 8, 2013, while the other two MDOs, Wright and Stanard, did not receive specific RIF letters. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 8.)

There are two main disputes regarding the specific RIF letters. First, the parties disagree on whether Plaintiff's specific RIF letter was warranted. Defendant claims that Plaintiff and Watkins received RIF notice letters because they had received Non-Contributor performanceratings for FY 2011. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff claims that, at least in her case, Defendant did not comply with the RIF rules. (Id.) Second, the parties disagree on why Stanard did not receive a specific RIF letter. Defendant contends that Stanard's veteran preference status exempted him from the RIF (id. ¶¶ 5, 10), while Plaintiff maintains that according to his official Form 50, Stanard did not have veteran preference status (id. ¶ 10).

D. New Position

On January 29, 2013, USPS posted an MDO position at JCTM, where Plaintiff was working at the time. (Id. ¶ 12.) On February 8, 2013, Plaintiff accepted placement in a Level 17 Supervisor position at different facility, the Capital Beltway Facility. This position was five grades below her previous Level 22 MDO position. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 12.) The circumstances surrounding these events are also in dispute. Defendant claims Plaintiff requested the downgrade and accepted it, and therefore Watkins, the only eligible employee, was offered the MDO position. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 15.)

Plaintiff testified that, after receiving her specific RIF letter, she met with Human Resources Manager Phyllis Lingenfelser and requested reinstatement to the newly posted MDO position at JCTM. (Id. ¶ 12.) Lingenfelser told her that she could not be reinstated because she had received a Non-Contributor performance rating in 2011. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff also claims that Lingenfelser told her that McLlwain would not select her for a future MDO position "under any circumstances," so she accepted the downgrade because she felt it was her only alternative to termination. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 12.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no disputed genuine issue of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A dispute of fact is "genuine" only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is "material" only when it involves facts "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323 (internal quotations omitted). In response, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings" and identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. To defeat summary judgment, the nonmovant must "provide evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find [in his favor]." Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

In evaluating a motion for summary...