Arnold v. Norton ( 2013 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________
)
ROMELLA ARNOLD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1475 (RWR)
)
SALLY JEWELL, )
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Romella Arnold, an employee of the United States
Department of the Interior (“DOI”), brings this action against
the Secretary of the DOI1 alleging race, sex, and age
discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633a. At the close of
discovery, the Secretary moved for summary judgment. Because
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Arnold
was discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, and age when
she was laterally transferred to a Title VI position, the
Secretary’s motion will be denied as to this claim. Arnold
failed to exhaust timely her administrative remedies for her
claims that she was discriminated against on the basis of race,
1
Secretary Jewell is substituted as the defendant under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
- 2 -
sex, age and retaliation when she was twice accused in September
2002 of money laundering and that she was discriminated against
on the basis of race, sex and retaliation when her former
supervisor deleted a records tracking system and attempted to
transfer Arnold’s job to another office. She also failed to show
that the latter two actions, the 2003 accusations against her of
money laundering, the denial of a travel request, a short work
deadline imposed, a counseling letter issued to her, her office
relocation and re-defined performance standards, and a program
termination were adverse employment actions. Thus, the
Secretary’s motion will be granted as to these disparate
treatment claims. Because Arnold failed to establish a prima
facie case of retaliation and hostile work environment, judgment
will be entered for the Secretary on these claims.
BACKGROUND
Arnold is an African-American woman who was born in 1952.
Compl. ¶ 3. In 1975, Arnold was employed by the DOI as an Equal
Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Specialist and, for approximately
two years, worked on both Title VI and Title VII programs.
Def.’s Stmt. of Material Facts (“Def.’s Stmt.”) ¶¶ 1, 2. In
1997, Arnold was reassigned to the DOI’s Bureau of Land
Management (“BLM”) where she worked as an EEO Specialist. Id.
¶ 4. The next year, Arnold took on the duties and
responsibilities of the National Student Education Employment
- 3 -
Program (“NSEEP”) Program Manager, which included running the
Student Temporary Employment Program and the Student in Career
Employment Program (“SCEP”). Id. In 1999, Arnold was promoted
to a GS-13 SCEP Program Manager position, although she continued
to fulfill the duties of the NSEEP Program Manager. Id. ¶ 5;
Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Stmt. (“Pl.’s Resp.”) ¶ 5.
“In 2002, Marilyn Johnson was hired as the Assistant
Director for Human Resources for the BLM. In this capacity,
Johnson served as Arnold’s second-level supervisor.” Arnold v.
Salazar, Civil Action No. 09-964 (RWR), 2013 WL 5273369, at *1
(D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2013). Johnson’s duties included overseeing a
funding agreement between BLM and Langston University
(“Langston”). Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 15-17. Arnold was involved in the
Langston agreement and alleges that twice in September 2002 and
thrice between July and October 2003, Johnson accused her of
laundering money to Langston. Compl. ¶¶ 16-22; Def.’s Stmt.
¶¶ 18-19, 25. Under Johnson’s leadership, BLM’s partnership with
Langston ultimately was terminated in March 2004. Def.’s Stmt.
¶ 26.
Arnold alleges that on May 8, 2003, Johnson caused her
assistant, Connie Stewart, to send an e-mail to the BLM Field
Committee proposing that the committee adopt the “Lead State
Concept.” Compl. ¶ 25; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 27. Under the Lead State
Concept, a state would become responsible for the BLM’s student
- 4 -
recruiting programs, including the SCEP. Id. ¶ 29. Arnold
alleges that if effectuated, the proposal “would have resulted in
a directed reassignment of Plaintiff” to a state office. Compl.
¶ 26. The program functions were never transferred to a state
office. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 30.
Arnold alleges that she used the Student
Employment/Historically Black College and University (“HBCU”)
Tracking System (“SERTS”), an automated system that was developed
to monitor the recruitment and hiring of students in the HBCU
program, to complete some of her duties. Compl. ¶ 28; Pl.’s
Resp. ¶ 48. In January 2003, Johnson decided to terminate SERTS,
and instructed a subordinate to delete the system. Compl. ¶ 29;
Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 38. After she terminated the system, Johnson
asked Arnold to prepare a program report on July 18, 2003.
Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 52. Johnson gave Arnold only 30 minutes to
complete the report although Arnold alleges that she had to
manually collect the data from other employees because SERTS had
been terminated, which made it more difficult to prepare a
program report. Id.; see also Compl. ¶ 31.
In June 2003, Arnold submitted a travel request to Johnson
to travel on June 12, 2003 to a training that was to begin on
June 16, 2003. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 54. Johnson denied Arnold’s
request to travel on June 12, but approved Arnold’s travel for
June 15. Id. ¶ 55. Arnold alleges that, as a result of having
- 5 -
to travel later, she “had to work through the night to ensure
[that] all training materials were in order” before the training
began. Compl. ¶ 35.
During a meeting in late July 2003, Johnson announced that
Dr. Mike Brown, a man who was younger than Arnold, would be
laterally reassigned to the GS-14 position of NSEEP/HBCU Program
Manager. Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 56, 59; Compl. ¶ 44. In response to
the announcement, Arnold said “I’ll be dammed [sic].” Def.’s
Stmt. ¶ 57. On August 1, 2003, Johnson issued Arnold a letter of
counseling for “Inappropriate Language and Abusive Behavior,” id.
¶ 58, warning that such behavior “will no longer be tolerated,”
Pl.’s Resp. ¶ 56.
In addition, on August 1, 2003, Johnson reassigned Arnold to
a GS-13 Title VI EEO Specialist position. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 72.
Following her reassignment, Arnold was given a different office
and different telephone number. Id. ¶ 74. Arnold alleges that
her new office was “considerably smaller than her previous
office.” Compl. ¶ 58. On October 1, 2003, Arnold was given new
performance standards for her Title VI EEO Specialist position,
Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 75, and a position description, both of which
Arnold alleged were “fallacious.” Compl. ¶ 53.
Arnold alleges that throughout her tenure with the DOI, she
engaged in protected EEO activity. For instance, Arnold alleges
that in March 2002, the EEOC’s Federal Sector Programs Director,
- 6 -
R. Edison Elkins, wrote that she was serving on a committee that
worked with the EEOC to identify problems with BLM’s EEO
practices. See Def. Errata [ECF No. 18], Ex. 9 (Pl.’s Answers to
Objns. to Def.’s 1st Set of Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs.
(“Pl.’s Answers to Interrogs.”) at 18-19).
On August 4, 2003, Arnold contacted an EEO counselor,
complaining of disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile
work environment. Comp. ¶ 7. Arnold filed a formal
administrative complaint on October 15, 2003, id. ¶ 8, and
brought suit against the Secretary in July 2005.
The Secretary now moves for summary judgment arguing that
Arnold failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for several
of her disparate treatment and retaliation claims. The Secretary
also argues that Arnold failed to state a disparate treatment,
retaliation, and hostile work environment claim, and that even if
she had, Arnold did not rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for the DOI’s employment decisions about Arnold. Arnold
opposes.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is properly granted if the “movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). A genuine issue “is present in a case where the
‘evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
- 7 -
for the non-moving party,’ a situation separate and distinct from
a case where the evidence is ‘so one-sided that one party must
prevail as a matter of law.’” Dozier-Nix v. District of
Columbia, 851 F. Supp. 2d 163, 166 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “‘A
fact is “material” if a dispute over it might affect the outcome
of a suit under governing law.’” United States v. Sci.
Applications Int’l Corp., Civil Action No. 04-1543 (RWR), 2013 WL
3791423, at *4 (D.D.C. July 22, 2013) (quoting Holcomb v. Powell,
433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). “In considering a motion
for summary judgment, a court is to draw all justifiable
inferences from the evidence in favor of the nonmovant.”
Hairston v. Boardman, 915 F. Supp. 2d 155, 159 (D.D.C. 2013)
(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Fields v. Geithner, 840 F. Supp. 2d 128, 133 (D.D.C. 2012)).
I. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
A federal employee raising Title VII and ADEA claims must
timely exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing a
civil action. See Rann v. Chao, 346 F.3d 192, 195 (D.C. Cir.
2003); Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C. Cir.
1997). Before bringing a Title VII or ADEA claim, a federal
employee must initiate informal contact with an EEO counselor
within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. 42 U.S.C.
- 8 -
§ 2000e-16(c); 29 U.S.C. §§ 633a(b), (c)2; 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.105(a)(1); see also Rann, 346 F.3d at 195 (stating that
under the ADEA, a federal government employee “may invoke the
EEOC’s administrative process, and then sue if dissatisfied with
the results”); Johnson v. Vilsack, 815 F. Supp. 2d 221, 226
(D.D.C. 2011) (stating that “procedures governing discrimination
complaints brought by employees of the federal government under
the ADEA are set forth in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614”).3 The defendant
2
The Secretary incorrectly identifies 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)
as the governing statute. Govt.’s Mem. at 20. However, a
federal government employee’s age discrimination claims are
governed by 29 U.S.C. § 633a, while 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1) applies
to non-federal employees. See Forman v. Small, 271 F.3d 285, 296
(D.C. Cir. 2001). Thus, Arnold must have contacted the EEO
counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory conduct, as stated
in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, rather than within 180 days, as stated in
29 U.S.C. § 626. Additionally, even if the Secretary were
correct that Arnold’s age discrimination claims that were filed
180 days before Arnold initiated informal contact with an EEO
counselor were timed-barred, 180 days before August 4, 2003 is
February 5, 2003, not January 5, 2003, as the Secretary states.
However, because the Secretary miscalculated the date and uses
the incorrect statute, the Secretary argues only that “any
alleged acts that occurred prior to January 5, 2003, are barred
for age discrimination claims.” Def.’s Mem. at 20. Because the
45-day time limit is not jurisdictional, but rather a statute of
limitation defense subject to waiver, see Zipes v. Trans World
Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982); Johnson v. Vilsack, 815
F. Supp. 2d 221, 227 (D.D.C. 2011), the Secretary waives the
argument that Arnold’s age discrimination claims premised on acts
after January 5, 2003 are time-barred.
3
Alternatively, a federal employee “may bring a claim
directly to federal court so long as, within 180 days of the
allegedly discriminatory act, [she] provides the EEOC with notice
of [her] intent to sue at least 30 days before commencing suit.”
Rann, 346 F.3d at 195 (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 633a(c), (d)). Arnold
does not allege that she sent a notice of intent to sue to the
EEOC. Accordingly, Arnold’s age discrimination claims are
- 9 -
bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff failed to exhaust
her administrative remedies. See Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d
158, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Arnold contacted an EEO counselor on August 4, 2003. The
Secretary argues that several of Arnold’s disparate treatment and
retaliation claims are time-barred.4 See Def.’s Mem. at 19-20;
Def.’s Reply at 18. Arnold counters that even though she did not
initiate contact with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the
allegedly discriminatory conduct, all of her claims were timely
exhausted because “[u]nder the continuing violations theory,
Defendant’s discriminatory actions were part of a continuing
pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory activity that were
untimely if she did not consult with an EEO counselor within 45
days of the allegedly discriminatory acts.
4
The Secretary miscalculates May 20, 2003 as the operative
date for determining if Arnold exhausted timely her claim, Def.’s
Mem. at 20. Forty-five days before August 4, 2003, the date
Arnold made initial contact with an EEO counselor, is June 20,
2003. This mistake does not affect the Secretary’s argument that
Arnold’s claims premised on Johnson’s acts before May 20, 2003 --
such as the money laundering accusations in 2002, and Johnson’s
termination of SERTS in January 2003 and attempt to transfer
Arnold’s job to a state office in May 2003 -- are untimely.
There is, however, one allegedly discriminatory act that occurred
in June 2003, more than 45 days before Arnold’s first contact
with an EEO counselor: on June 11, 2003, Johnson denied Arnold’s
travel request. Nevertheless, because the Secretary bears the
burden of establishing that Arnold failed to exhaust timely her
administrative remedies, and the Secretary made no argument that
Arnold’s sex, race, and age discrimination claims premised on the
June conduct is untimely, this claim will not be dismissed as
time barred. See supra n.2 (explaining that the statute of
limitations defense is subject to waiver).
- 10 -
connected to a timely complaint.” Pl.’s Corrected Opp’n to
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 44.
The Supreme Court has rejected the continuing violations
theory for discrete discriminatory and retaliatory acts raised in
Title VII claims. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536
U.S. 101, 122 (2002). There, the Court “held that ‘a Title VII
plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or
retaliatory acts must file his charge within’ 45 days of the day
that the act occurred. This is so ‘even when [the discrete
discriminatory acts] are related to acts alleged in timely filed
charges.’” Arnold, 2013 WL 5273369, at *4 (alteration in
original) (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113, 122). The D.C.
Circuit also applies Morgan in suits alleging age discrimination
in violation of the ADEA. See Law v. Cont’l Airlines Corp.,
Inc., 399 F.3d 330, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
“Each [discrete] incident of discrimination and each
retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate
actionable ‘unlawful employment practice.’” Morgan, 536 U.S. at
114. Title VII and the ADEA make “all [discriminatory] personnel
actions” affecting federal government employees illegal. See 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a); 29 U.S.C. § 633a. “Discrete acts such as
termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal
to hire are easy to identify.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114.
Discrete acts also include an employee’s claims that she was
- 11 -
wrongfully suspended from work, denied training, or falsely
accused of a workplace infraction. See id.Arnold complains that in September 2002, Johnson twice
accused her of money laundering, instructed a subordinate to
terminate SERTS in January 2003, thereby making it more difficult
to complete her job duties, and tried to transfer Arnold’s job to
a state office by having Stewart send an e-mail on May 8, 2003
regarding the Lead State Concept. Compl. at 6. Each of these
events is easy to identify and had the potential to alter a term
or condition of Arnold’s employment. Moreover, none of these
acts by “[t]heir very nature involves repeated conduct.” Morgan,
536 U.S. at 115. Thus, these are discrete acts. Because Arnold
did not timely initiate informal contact with an EEO counselor
for her claims of intentional discrimination on the basis of
race, sex, and age and retaliation based on Johnson’s allegedly
false accusations in September 2002, and intentional
discrimination on the basis of race and sex and retaliation based
on Johnson causing SERTS to be terminated in January 2003 and
Johnson’s attempt to transfer Arnold’s job to a state office in
May 2003, the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment will be
granted as to these claims. Arnold’s claims of intentional
discrimination on the basis of age based on Johnson’s termination
of SERTS in January 2003 and Johnson’s attempt to transfer
Arnold’s job to a state office in May 2003, as well as Arnold’s
- 12 -
claims of intentional discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
and age and retaliation for Johnson’s denial of Arnold’s travel
request in June 2003 survive the Secretary’s exhaustion challenge
since the Secretary did not challenge these claims as untimely.
II. DISPARATE TREATMENT
Title VII and ADEA disparate treatment claims are analyzed
under the burden-shifting framework articulated in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Krodel v.
Young, 748 F.2d 701, 705 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“Courts have generally
applied the tripartite evidentiary scheme developed in the
context of Title VII litigation to suits brought under the
ADEA.”). Under the three-part McDonnell Douglas framework, the
plaintiff has the burden to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. To make out
a prima facie case of discrimination, “a plaintiff must show
[(1)] that [she] ‘is a member of a protected class,’ [(2)] that
[she] ‘suffered an adverse employment action,’ and [(3)] that
‘the unfavorable action gives rise to an inference of
discrimination.’” Youssef v. FBI, 687 F.3d 397, 401 (D.C. Cir.
2012) (quoting Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 145 (D.C. Cir.
2002)); see also Cuddy v. Carmen, 694 F.2d 853, 857 (D.C. Cir.
1982) (discussing a plaintiff’s initial burden in an ADEA case).
“An ‘adverse employment action’ . . . is ‘a significant change in
employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote,
- 13 -
reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a
decision causing significant change in benefits.’” Taylor v.
Small, 350 F.3d 1286, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Burlington
Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998)). “An employee
must ‘experience materially adverse consequences affecting the
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or future
employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact
could find objectively tangible harm.’” Douglas v. Donovan, 559
F.3d 549, 552 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (alteration omitted) (quoting
Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
If a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the burden then
shifts to the employer to “produc[e] a non-discriminatory
explanation for the challenged personnel action.” Ford v. Mabus,
629 F.3d 198, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
If the employer provides a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for the action, then the plaintiff must show “that
discriminatory animus was the determining or but-for cause of the
personnel action.” Id. “The plaintiff may satisfy this burden
‘either indirectly by showing the employer’s reason is pretextual
or directly by showing that it was more likely than not that the
employer was motivated by discrimination.’” Id. (quoting Forman
v. Small, 271 F.3d 285, 292 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). One way for a
plaintiff to “show that a reasonable jury could conclude from all
of the evidence that the adverse employment decision was made for
- 14 -
a discriminatory reason” is to “show[] that the nondiscriminatory
explanation the defendant proffered for its decision was false.”
Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Arnold’s complaint alleges numerous timely exhausted
intentional discrimination claims. Specifically, it alleges that
the Secretary discriminated against her on the basis of age when
Johnson instructed a subordinate to terminate SERTS and tried to
transfer Arnold’s job to a state office. It also alleges that
the Secretary discriminated against Arnold on the basis of race,
sex, and age when Johnson accused Arnold of money laundering in
July and August 2003, denied Arnold’s travel request, set an
unreasonable deadline for Arnold’s work, issued a letter of
counseling to Arnold, reassigned Arnold to the Title VI position,
required Arnold to work under a false position description, moved
Arnold to a smaller office, and did not allow Arnold to retain
her phone number after she was moved to the smaller office. The
Secretary argues that Arnold cannot establish a prima facie case
of intentional discrimination because none of the allegedly
discriminatory actions was an adverse employment action. The
Secretary further argues that even if Arnold could meet her
initial burden, the Secretary has legitimate nondiscriminatory
reasons for her employment decisions.
- 15 -
A. Termination of SERTS
The Secretary contends that Johnson’s decision to terminate
SERTS is “clearly not an adverse personnel action since it did
not affect the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s employment.”
Def.’s Mem. at 25. Arnold argues that Johnson’s decision to
delete the system “resulted in Arnold having to manually collect
data on a national program.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 37; see also id.,Ex. 22 (Marilyn H. Johnson EEOC Test. at 87:19-88-4) (Johnson
testifying that after she terminated SERTS, employees had to
manually collect the data they needed from another system).
While changing the method Arnold had to use to track records may
have made it more difficult for Arnold to complete her work
assignments, Arnold offers no evidence, legal authority, or
argument demonstrating that terminating SERTS led to an
objectively tangible harm. Thus, Arnold did not meet her initial
burden to show that terminating SERTS was an adverse employment
action, and judgment will be entered for the Secretary on this
claim.
B. Proposal to transfer student recruitment programs to
state office
The Secretary argues that the proposal to transfer the
student recruitment programs to a state office was never
implemented and “Plaintiff’s speculation of what might or could
have happened if the proposal had been accepted by a state, does
not establish a material adverse action.” Def.’s Mem. at 25.
- 16 -
Arnold argues that the e-mail proposing that the student
recruitment programs, including the SCEP, be transferred to a
state office caused her to “suffer[] undue stress, anxiety, and
harm at the thought of having to choose between a federal career
of over thirty years and the disruption of a major move to
another location.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 37. However, “purely
subjective injuries,” such as stress and anxiety suffered as a
result of a discriminatory program transfer proposal, “are not
sufficient to establish an adverse employment action for the
purposes of Title VII.” Augustus v. Locke, Civil Action No.
09-1003 (EGS), 2013 WL 1290839, at *9 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2013)
(citing Forkkio, 306 F.3d at 1130–31). Because Arnold has not
shown that the proposal to transfer the student recruitment
programs to a state office was an adverse employment action, the
Secretary’s motion will be granted as to this claim.
C. Money laundering accusations
The Secretary argues that Arnold cannot show that Johnson’s
alleged accusations that Arnold was engaging in money laundering
were adverse employment actions. Def.’s Mem. at 22. “[F]alse
accusations without negative employment consequences are not
employment decisions actionable under Title VII.” Mack v.
Strauss, 134 F. Supp. 2d 103, 113 n.6 (D.D.C. 2001) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The Secretary contends that the
alleged verbal accusations caused Arnold no harm, and that Arnold
- 17 -
admitted as much in her investigative interview. Arnold stated
in the interview that she did not complain about Johnson’s verbal
accusations at the time they happened “because at the time it was
still a verbal accusation” and that Arnold had yet to “‘suffer[]
harm’” or “‘an adverse impact.’” Def.’s Mem. at 22 (quoting
Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Romella J. Arnold Investigative Interview at
121:7-18). Arnold does not address the Secretary’s arguments in
her opposition. “If a party fails to address an argument that is
put forth in a dispositive motion, that argument may be deemed
conceded.” Antoine v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 821 F. Supp. 2d 1,
6 (D.D.C. 2010). Thus, Arnold has conceded that Johnson’s money
laundering accusations were not adverse employment actions, and
the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment will be granted as to
this claim.
D. Denied travel request
While not being able to travel to the training session as
early as Arnold would have liked may have been an inconvenience,
the Secretary argues that denying Arnold’s travel request did not
affect the terms and conditions of Arnold’s employment. Def.’s
Mem. at 26. Arnold asserts that “Johnson’s action forced Arnold
to travel on Sunday[,] June 15, 2003, to Phoenix and then because
of time constraints, Arnold had to work through the night to
ensure all training materials were in order[.]” Pl.’s Opp’n at
15 n.8. However, Arnold makes no legal argument that restricting
- 18 -
travel and causing an employee to work all night is an adverse
employment action, and thus concedes the Secretary’s argument
that limiting work related travel does not alter the terms or
conditions of her employment or limit her job performance. In
any event, delaying Arnold’s work-related travel “did not have a
materially adverse effect on the terms or conditions of
plaintiff’s employment -- [Arnold] simply carried out [her] work
responsibilities at the time . . . dictated by [her]
supervisor[.]” See Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F. Supp. 2d 56, 74
(D.D.C. 2007) (emphasis omitted). Because Arnold has not shown
that denying her request for early travel is an adverse
employment action, the Secretary will be granted judgment on this
claim.
E. Unreasonable deadline
The Secretary argues that Johnson asking Arnold to prepare a
program report in 30 minutes was not an adverse employment
action. Def.’s Mem. at 25. The Secretary provides evidence that
when Arnold told Johnson that she could not deliver the report at
the requested time, Johnson’s only response was that Arnold
should deliver the report to Johnson whenever Arnold could do so.
Def.’s Errata [ECF No. 18], Ex. 5 (Romella Arnold Dep. at
46:5-20). Arnold does not address this argument in her
opposition, and thus concedes the Secretary’s argument that the
- 19 -
short deadline was not an adverse employment action.
Accordingly, the Secretary is entitled to judgment on this claim.
F. Lateral transfer to Title VI position
Arnold claims that she was discriminated against when she
was laterally reassigned from the GS-13 SCEP Program Manager
position to the GS-13 Title VI EEO Specialist position. Pl.’s
Opp’n at 19-23. The Secretary argues that this lateral transfer
was not an adverse employment action because the transfer did not
involve “a significant change in responsibilities.” Def.’s Mem.
at 29-30.
[A] plaintiff who is made to undertake or who is denied
a lateral transfer -- that is, one in which she suffers
no diminution in pay or benefits -- does not suffer an
actionable injury unless there are some other
materially adverse consequences affecting the terms,
conditions, or privileges of her employment or her
future employment opportunities such that a reasonable
trier of fact could conclude that the plaintiff has
suffered objectively tangible harm.
Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1999), abrogation on
other grounds recognized by Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). While overseeing the HBCU recruitment program,
Arnold provided “guidance and direction for BLM’s External
(Public) and Internal (DOI) Civil Rights Program,” served “as the
advisor and internal consultant to BLM’s management officials,”
and developed, reviewed and recommended policies and procedures.
See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 45 (Employee Performance Plan and Results
Rep.). In the Title VI position, however, Arnold provides
- 20 -
evidence that she was vaguely directed to develop the Title VI
program, but was given no program files, directives, guidelines,
or copies of compliance reviews in the position. See Pl.’s
Opp’n, Ex. 45 (Mtg. with R. Arnold (Fri. Oct. 23, 2003)). Arnold
also alleges that, unlike the SCEP position, the Title VI
position did not have any leadership opportunities or promotion
potential. Pl.’s Opp’n at 20-22. Thus, although Arnold’s
reassignment did not involve a decrease in salary or grade level,
Arnold has alleged sufficient facts to create a genuine dispute
concerning whether the reassignment was an adverse employment
action involving materially different job responsibilities and
opportunities.
The Secretary further argues that she had a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for transferring Arnold to the Title VI
EEO Specialist position. The Secretary explains that Arnold was
transferred to the new Title VI position because in May 2003, the
U.S. Civil Rights Commission (“Commission”) issued a report
criticizing “BLM for not having a Civil Rights Specialist to
handle Title VI issues” and concluding that the BLM needed to
establish a Title VI program. Def.’s Mem. at 43 (citing Def.’s
Errata [ECF No. 18], Ex. 10 (Blue Exs. at Ex. 28)). In response
to the Commission’s report, Johnson decided to develop a BLM
Title VI program. Johnson reassigned Arnold to the program
because Arnold had “occupied the position of EEO Specialist
- 21 -
(Title VI) from 1979 to 1981.” Id. at 44; see also Def.’s Stmt.
¶¶ 1-2.
Arnold argues that the Secretary’s articulated legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason is false because creating the Title VI
program and reassigning Arnold to a position within the program
was contrary to a DOI Directive. On June 13, 2002, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Workforce Diversity
sent a memorandum to all of the DOI Bureau and Office Directors
requesting that “[i]n anticipation of some restructuring in the
near future[,]” the Directors “not make any changes to [their]
Equal Opportunity organization, structure, location or
personnel.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 24-25; id. Ex. 41 (Memorandum from J.
Michael Trujillo, Department Asst. Secretary for Human Resources
and Workforce Diversity, DOI, to Bureau and Office Directors
(June 13, 2002)). The Deputy Director of the Office for EEO also
stated that she believed that Johnson’s reassignment of Arnold to
the Title VI position was contrary to the DOI’s then-policy. See
Pl.’s Opp’n at 25; id. Ex. 42 (E-mail from Melodee Stith, to Mike
Trujillo (Aug. 6, 2003, 9:06 a.m.) (“Stith E-mail”) “‘[T]he
trier of fact may deem [Johnson’s failure to follow the DOI’s own
procedures] probative in determining the true motivation behind
the hiring decision of the prospective employer.’” See Salazar
v. Wash. Metro. Transit Auth., 401 F.3d 504, 509 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
- 22 -
(alteration omitted) (quoting Johnson v. Lehman, 679 F.2d 918,
922 (D.C. Cir. 1982)).
Contrary to the Secretary’s assertion that Johnson was
reasonably addressing a problem that the Commission had
identified, see Def.’s Mem. at 44, Arnold also provides evidence
that the Deputy Director believed that Johnson was “not acting
responsibly” and was “acting arbitrar[ily] and capricious[ly]” in
assigning Arnold to the Title VI position. See Stith E-mail.
Arnold further contends that although she had some prior
experience in Title VI, “it had been over twenty years since
[she] had served in a Title VI program,” and even then she served
at the GS-7 level. Pl.’s Opp’n at 25. As such, Arnold argues
that she lacked the qualification and experience needed to serve
as a Title VI EEO Specialist. Id.Arnold also provides evidence that Brown had little
experience with the NSEEP position duties, and thus was not
better qualified than she was for the position. See Pl.’s Opp’n
at 33-34; id. Ex. 43 (Mike Brown Dep. at 40:14-25). Although the
Secretary has offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for
transferring Arnold to the Title VI position, Arnold has put
forward sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that
the Secretary’s proffered reason is false and is not the actual
reason she was transferred. Accordingly, summary judgment will
be denied for the Secretary on Arnold’s claim that she was
- 23 -
transferred to the Title VI position because of intentional
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and age.
G. Letter of counseling
The Secretary contends that Arnold has not demonstrated that
the letter of counseling for inappropriate behavior and language
was an adverse employment action. “[F]ormal criticism . . . [is
not] necessarily [an] adverse action[]” and it should not be
considered such if it did not “affect[] the [employee’s] grade or
salary.” Brown, 199 F.3d at 457-58; see also Baloch v.
Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (finding that a
letter of counseling that “contained no abusive language, but
rather job-related constructive criticism, which can prompt an
employee to improve her performance” was not retaliatory under
the “materially adverse employment action” standard (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Here, the letter of counseling explained that Arnold’s
language and behavior were unprofessional, discussed the impact
that Arnold’s behavior was having on the work environment, and
cautioned her that similar behavior in the future might result in
disciplinary action. See Def.’s Errata [ECF No. 18], Ex. 10
(Blue Exs. at Ex. 23). Thus, the letter contains only job-
related constructive criticism. Nevertheless, Arnold argues that
the letter of counseling caused adverse employment actions
because the letter was “issued contemporaneous with Johnson’s
- 24 -
notice to Arnold of Arnold’s reassignment to the non-existent
Title VI position; threatened further disciplinary action; and
most particularly, contained false statements and gross
exaggerations.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 39. However, Arnold provides no
evidence or argument to demonstrate that the letter of counseling
was a consideration in reassigning her to the Title VI position
or that it otherwise caused an adverse employment action. Arnold
also fails to provide evidence to support her assertion that the
letter contained false statements. Because Arnold has not
demonstrated that the letter of counseling was an adverse
employment action, judgment will be entered for the Secretary on
this claim.
F. False position description, smaller office and new
telephone number, BLM-Langston agreement
The Secretary asserts that Arnold has not shown that
presenting Arnold with allegedly false and impractical
performance standards and causing Arnold to move to a smaller
office and giving her a new telephone number were adverse
employment actions. Def.’s Mem. at 37-38. The Secretary further
asserts that Arnold cannot show that Johnson terminating BLM’s
agreement with Langston was an adverse employment action because
terminating the agreement did not affect the terms and conditions
of Arnold’s employment, in part because the agreement was
terminated several months after Arnold was transferred from the
SCEP Program Manager position. Def.’s Mem. at 24. Arnold
- 25 -
conceded these arguments by failing to address them in her
opposition. Accordingly, judgment will be entered for the
Secretary on Arnold’s claims that she was discriminated against
when she was given allegedly false and impractical performance
standards, when she was moved to a smaller office and not allowed
to retain her old telephone number, and when Johnson terminated
BLM’s agreement with Langston.
III. RETALIATION
Both Title VII and the ADEA make it unlawful for an employer
to retaliate against a federal government employee for engaging
in protected EEO activity. See Forman, 271 F.3d at 297-98. To
establish a prima face case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show
“(1) that [she] engaged in statutorily protected activity;
(2) that [she] suffered a materially adverse action by [her]
employer; and (3) that a causal link connects the two.” Jones v.
Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “A plaintiff may
show causation through direct evidence or circumstantial
evidence, such as by showing that the employer had knowledge of
the employee’s protected conduct and a close temporal proximity
between the employer’s knowledge and the adverse actions.”
Clayton v. District of Columbia, 931 F. Supp. 2d 192, 202 (D.D.C.
2013). “The cases that accept mere temporal proximity between an
employer’s knowledge of protected activity and an adverse
employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to
- 26 -
establish a prima facie case uniformly hold that the temporal
proximity must be ‘very close[.]’” Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v.
Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273 (2001). “Although neither the Supreme
Court nor the D.C. Circuit has established a bright-line rule,
‘the cases cited by the Breeden Court seem to suggest that if a
plaintiff relies upon temporal proximity alone to establish
causation, the time span must be under three months.’” Lee v.
Mabus, Civil Action No. 05-1335 (BJR), 2013 WL 3835627, at *11
(D.D.C. July 26, 2013) (quoting Buggs v. Powell, 293 F. Supp. 2d
135, 148 (D.D.C. 2003)).
The Secretary argues that Arnold cannot establish a causal
connection between her protected conduct and her remaining
retaliation claims. In her response to the Secretary’s
interrogatory, Arnold asserted that she was retaliated against
because she engaged in protected conduct through March 12, 2002.5
Arnold alleges that on March 12, 2002, the EEOC’s Federal Sector
5
Arnold also states that she was retaliated against because
in a December 4, 2003 letter to the Secretary, Representative
Albert Wynn “address[ed] the accusation of ‘money laundering’
against [her] and her removal from a critical occupation where
she was most valued and successful,” and because in a June 24,
2004 letter to the Secretary, the president of a company
“address[ed] the continued pattern and practice of racial
discrimination in the DOI.” See Def. Errata [ECF No. 18], Ex. 9
(Pl.’s Answers & Objns. to Def.’s 1st Set of Interrogs. & Reqs.
for Prod. of Docs. at 18-19). Because most of the Secretary’s
allegedly retaliatory conduct pre-dates these letters, that
allegedly retaliatory conduct could not have been in retaliation
for these letters. Arnold, 2013 WL 5273369, at *5 (citing Booth
v. District of Columbia, 701 F. Supp. 2d 73, 79 (D.D.C. 2010)).
- 27 -
Programs Director wrote that Arnold served on a committee that
worked with the EEOC to identify problems with the BLM’s EEO
practices. See Pl.’s Answers to Interrogs. at 18-19. As a
result of her protected conduct, Arnold claims that she was
retaliated against from January 2003 to October 2003, and in
March 2004.6 Because the allegedly retaliatory conduct occurred
well over ten months after March 2002 -- when Arnold’s purported
protected conduct ended -- temporal proximity between the
protected conduct and retaliatory acts alone cannot establish
causation. Moreover, Arnold did not respond to the Secretary’s
argument that Arnold “has offered no evidence that Ms. Johnson
was aware of [the March 12, 2002] letter or plaintiff’s committee
work in relation to it.” Def.’s Mem. at 21. Thus, this argument
is conceded. Since Arnold has not demonstrated that the temporal
proximity between her protected conduct and the allegedly
retaliatory actions alone is sufficient to establish causation,
6
Specifically, Arnold alleges that she was retaliated
against when Johnson (1) terminated SERTS in January 2003, (2)
directed Stewart to send an e-mail regarding the “Lead State
Concept” on May 8, 2003, (3) denied Arnold’s request to travel in
June 2003, (4) set an unreasonable deadline for Arnold in July
2003, (5) transferred Arnold from the SCEP Program Manager
position to the Title VI position in July 2003, (6) falsely
accused her of money laundering on July 18, 2003 and August 12,
2003, (7) issued a letter of counseling in August 2003, (8) moved
Arnold to a smaller office and did not allow Arnold to keep her
phone number in September 2003, (9) gave Arnold a false position
description for her Title VI EEO specialist position on
October 1, 2003, and (10) terminated BLM’s agreement with
Langston in March 2004. Pl.’s Answers to Interrogs. at 2-14.
- 28 -
and she does not provide an alternative theory to establish
causation, the Secretary is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on Arnold’s retaliation claims.7
IV. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
“[A] hostile work environment can amount to retaliation
under Title VII.” Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 366 (D.C.
Cir. 2006). “To prevail on a retaliatory hostile work
environment claim, ‘a plaintiff must show that her employer
subjected her to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and
insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive
working environment.’” Ramseur v. Perez, Civil Action No. 13-
0169 (ESH), 2013 WL 4483511, at *6 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2013)
(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1201). In determining whether a hostile work
environment exists, courts “‘look[] at all the circumstances,’
7
In her opposition, Arnold also asserts that her “defense
of the affirmative employment agreement with Langston University,
an HBCU” was protected conduct. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 9. Protected
conduct is opposition to an employment practice that violates
Title VII or the ADEA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; 29 U.S.C.
§ 623(d)); see also Forman, 271 F.3d at 297-98 (explaining that
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 and 29 U.S.C. § 633a bar the forms of
discrimination identified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and 29 U.S.C.
§ 623(d)). However, Arnold has not demonstrated that Johnson’s
questions about the DOI’s agreement with Langston or Johnson’s
decision to terminate the agreement are unlawful employment
practices under Title VII and the ADEA. Thus, Arnold has not
shown that retaliation because Arnold defended the BLM-Langston
agreement violates Title VII or the ADEA.
- 29 -
including the ‘frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its
severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or
a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably
interferes with an employee’s work performance.’” Faragher v.
City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998) (quoting Harris
v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).
Arnold claims that the Secretary subjected her to “a hostile
work environment through acts of retaliatory harassment against
Arnold.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 29. Specifically, Arnold argues that
Johnson’s acts, including making false accusations that Arnold
was laundering money, threatening to transfer Arnold’s position
to a state office, terminating SERTS, issuing a letter of
counseling, and reassigning Arnold to the Title VI position
“constitute a pattern of retaliatory harassment.” Id. at 29-30.
The Secretary argues that these acts were not sufficiently
severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment.
Def.’s Mem. at 39-40. Arnold counters that Johnson’s repeated
accusations that Arnold was involved in illegal money laundering
are evidence of “Johnson’s agenda . . . to harass and intimidate
Arnold.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 29. Arnold also asserts that Johnson’s
“actions constitute a pattern of retaliatory harassment.” Id. at
30.8 However, Arnold does not confront the Secretary’s argument
8
Arnold also asserts that Johnson made other “material
changes in Arnold’s terms and conditions of employment.” Id.However, Arnold does not point to any evidence to support this
- 30 -
that Johnson’s allegedly discriminatory actions were not
sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or
conditions of Arnold’s employment. For instance, Arnold does not
argue that Johnson’s actions occurred so frequently as to
unreasonably interfere with her work performance. Moreover,
Arnold does not dispute the Secretary’s argument that “during the
time Ms. Johnson was [Arnold’s] supervisor she met or spoke with
Ms. Johnson only about eight times.” Def.’s Mem. at 39. Because
Arnold has not made out a prima facie case of hostile work
environment, judgment will be entered for the Secretary on this
claim.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Arnold did not timely exhaust her administrative remedies
for her Title VII and ADEA claims that the Secretary
discriminated and retaliated against her by accusing her of money
laundering in September 2002, and her Title VII claims that the
Secretary discriminated and retaliated against her by instructing
a subordinate to terminate SERTS in January 2003, and causing
Stewart to send an e-mail about the “Lead State Concept” in May
2003. Arnold has demonstrated that there is a disputed issue of
assertion and “[c]onclusory assertions offered without any
factual basis in the record cannot create a genuine dispute
sufficient to survive summary judgment.” Crummey v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 794 F. Supp. 2d 46, 55 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Ass’n of
Flight Attendants -- CWA v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 564 F.3d 462,
465–66 (D.C. Cir. 2009)).
- 31 -
material fact regarding whether she was discriminatorily
transferred to the Title VI program, but has failed to establish
a prima facie case for her other intentional discrimination
claims. Arnold also failed to establish a prima facie case for
her timely filed retaliation claims, and did not make out a prima
facie case of hostile work environment. Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED that the Secretary’s motion [17] for summary
judgment be, and hereby is, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Summary judgment is denied as to Arnold’s claim that she was
discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, and age when she
was transferred to the Title VI EEO Specialist position. Summary
judgment is granted as to Arnold’s other intentional
discrimination claims and her retaliation and hostile work
environment claims. It is further
ORDERED that the parties appear for a scheduling conference
on February 7, 2014 at 12:30 p.m.
SIGNED this 23rd day of December, 2013.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
Chief Judge