Ysasi-Huerta v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Transp.

RAQUEL YSASI-HUERTA, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

No. 16-11498

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

February 26, 2019

District Judge Robert H. Cleland

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff Raquel Ysasi-Huerta filed a civil complaint in the Northern District of Ohio, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The case was transferred to this Court on April 26, 2016. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #21], which has been referred for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons discussed below, I recommend that the motion be GRANTED.

I. FACTS

In her complaint, Plaintiff, a Hispanic female, states that she has worked for the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") since 1985. Complaint [Doc. #1], ¶ 1. Because she was interested in transferring to the FAA's Great Lakes Region so she could reside with her spouse, who was employed in Ohio, she applied for an position of Management Analyst that had opened in the Detroit, Michigan area. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. Six candidates "of various races and sex" were chosen from a pool of applicants for final consideration; Plaintiff was one of those six candidates. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. Ultimately, Mary Taylor, a Caucasian female, was hired. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that Joseph Figliuolo III, the terminal district manager in Michigan, was the decision maker, and that in choosing Ms. Taylor for the position, he discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of race. She states, "By pre-selecting Taylor, Figliuolo denied the Plaintiff equal employment opportunity based upon his preference to work with a former white female subordinate at the expense of the Hispanic Plaintiff." Id. ¶ 11. She also alleges that Figluolo retaliated against her for having brought a previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") complaint. Id. ¶ 15.

A transcript of the Plaintiff's deposition is found at Exhibit 1 of the Defendant's motion [Doc. #21]. She testified that she had filed an EEOC claim in 2001, alleging racial discrimination when she was not selected for the position of Administrative Officer. She settled that case. Ysasi-Huerta Deposition, p. 7. Joe Figliuolo was the FAA representative in the 2001 ADR settlement process, but not in the employment decision. Id. pp. 7-8. Between 2001 and the time she applied for the current Management Analyst position, she had no contact with Mr. Figliuolo. Id. p. 9.

Plaintiff wanted to change positions from Albuquerque to the Great Lakes Region because her husband, who also worked for the FAA, had relocated to Cleveland. She also saw the new position as one "that was going to allow [her] upward mobility." Id. p. 12. The announcement for the Management Analyst position stated that applicants may not be interviewed. Id.; p. 18. The announcement indicated that only people who are eligible and highly qualified would be referred to the selecting official for consideration. Id. p. 15. Joe Figliuolo was the selecting official. Id. 17.

Plaintiff opined that she was better qualified for the position that Mary Taylor, theperson who was ultimately selected. She said that she was "qualified at a higher level," meaning that she had a higher pay band. In addition, she said, her experience as an air traffic controller would have given her "a more in-depth understanding of the position." Id. p. 21.

After Ms. Taylor was selected, Plaintiff requested and received an "exit interview" with Mr. Figliuolo. Id. pp. 22-23. When she asked Figliuolo what qualifications Taylor had, he replied, "I know Mary, I don't know you." Id. p. 24. Plaintiff testified that Figliuolo never went into any detail about Taylor's qualifications, saying only that she and Plaintiff were both equally qualified, but that he knew Taylor. However, Figliuolo made no comments about Plaintiff's race. Id. When she told Figliuolo that she was seeking a position to be closer to her husband, Figliuolo stated that he would send her application back to Gabriela Weimann (at Human Resources) to see if she could be transferred. Id. pp. 25-26. An email she received from Figliuolo stated, "As we discussed on Wednesday, I'll be asking HR to help me determine what positions you would be eligible for." Id. p. 27. Plaintiff responded, "I appreciate your help with this matter." Id. p. 30. Eventually, Plaintiff took a position in Cleveland to be closer to her husband, even though she took a $10,000 per year cut to do so. Id. p. 43.

Submitted with Defendant's motion as Exhibit 11 are Plaintiff's handwritten notes taken at the time of her exit interview with Gigliuolo. In the first portion, the notes state, "Why/what quals [qualifications] does Mary have that made her the most better qualified," followed with "-nothing/no differences / really just the same it pretty much came down to my personal preference." Later, the notes appear to reflect Gigliuolo's reference to Plaintiff's application package, and a reference to her KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities). Referring to Gigliuolo's response, the notes, "Give more detail giveexamples of actual tasks;" "Saying I am self motivated didn't really say what's been accomplished....Not what you did but how it helped...What kind of databases-include/state what was in the databases. More specifics."

Submitted with Defendant's motion as Exhibit 4 is the EEOC deposition of Joseph Figliuolo. He testified that Plaintiff had reminded him that he met her back in 2001, but he did not recall that until she told him on the telephone. Figliuolo EEOC Deposition, p. 12. He testified that he had worked with Mary Taylor on a daily basis since 2002, and that he still worked with her. Id. p. 17. He said that in reviewing the applicants for the Management Analyst position, he looked at everyone's job application package, including any grammatical errors. Id. at 41. In terms of how he believed Taylor had superior knowledge, skill, and ability for the job as opposed to the Plaintiff, he testified that "[h]er knowledge, skills and abilities addressed the specific areas that were being addressed, she gave specific examples, she had greater knowledge of the Government programs that were available, she gave examples of not just local things she participated in, but regional and national items." Id. p. 43.

Defendant's Exhibit 5 is the EEOC Declaration of Gabriela M. Weimann, a senior HR specialist with the FAA, Great Lakes Region. She described the notice and selection process for the Management Analyst position. She testified that the position is posted, and once the application period closes, her office reviews the applications to determine eligibility and qualifications. Then, a list of qualified candidates is provided to the Selection Official, who in this case was Joseph Figliuolo. Weimann Declaration, p. 2. The candidates were listed in alphabetical order, indicating the applicable pay bands (H, I, and J), but she did not rank the candidates. Mr. Figliuolo had the option to interview some, none, or all of the candidates, and had the option to make a selection based solelyon the application packages, with no interviewing. Id. Ms. Weimann stated that under FAA policy, where candidates are equally qualified, the candidate who is in the higher pay band is not deemed more qualified, and if two equally qualified candidates are in different pay bands, it is not required that the Selecting Official choose the candidate who is in the higher pay band. Id. pp. 2-3.

The referral list provided to Mr. Figliuolo contained six candidates, including Plaintiff and Ms. Taylor. Referral List, Defendant's Exhibit 7.

Defendant's Exhibit 8 is the EEOC Declaration of Mr. Figliuolo. He stated that he was the Selecting Official for the position, but he received input and recommendations from Chris Lenfest, the Terminal Assistant District Manager. Figliuolo Declaration, p. 3. Mr. Lenfest prepared a matrix of the candidates based on their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). Lenfest identified Mary Taylor, Rhonda Collier, and Nancy Litwicki as the top three candidates based on their applications, and also discussed why he did not recommend the remaining three candidates. Regarding the Plaintiff, Lenfest said that her KSAs "were not very substantive and did not give specifics that showed her readiness for this position." Id. p. 4. Mr. Figliuolo said that he selected Ms. Taylor "because she was the best qualified candidate for the job," and "knew her and had worked with her for more than 10 years." Id.

Defendant's Exhibit 9 is the EEOC Declaration of Christopher Lenfest. At Mr. Figliuolo's request, he reviewed the applications of the six candidates for the position. He said that he ranked Plaintiff in the less qualified group for the following reasons:

"For two reasons: first, the vacancy announcement is specific about the importance of being able to communicate with all levels of the organization. [Plaintiff's] package had numerous grammatical errors. I was left with a negative impression about her communication skills-if she could not appropriately communicate in describing her own skills, I did not believe she could effectively communicate with all levels of management. Second,the descriptions she provided regarding her skills were very generalized and gave few examples of how she demonstrated those skills." Lenfenst Declaration, p. 2.

Defendant's Exhibit 14 is the application package that Plaintiff submitted. In the narrative portion, it in fact contains numerous spelling, grammatical, and syntactical errors.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the...