Jenkins v. Nee ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIE M. JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH NEE
Civil Action 07-01003 (HHK)
and
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING
AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Willie Jenkins brings this action against his employer, the District of Columbia
Housing Authority (“DCHA”), and his supervisor, Joseph Nee, in Nee’s individual capacity,
alleging discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 (counts I, II, and III), intentional
infliction of emotional distress (count IV), defamation (count V), intentional interference with
contractual relations (count VI), and injunctive relief (count VII).
Before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment [# 32].1 Jenkins does not
dispute defendants are entitled to summary judgment on counts IV–VII. Upon consideration of
the motion, the opposition thereto, the record of this case, and the parties’ oral arguments of July
24, 2009, the court concludes that the motion must be granted.
1
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment previously. The motion is
before the court again following plaintiff’s unopposed motion to reconsider.
1
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jenkins is a Black male who has worked for DCHA as a Utility Systems Operator since
2005. A “Utility Systems Repairer-Operator” has repair and maintenance responsibilities as well
as a responsibility to “[p]erform other related duties as assigned.” (Pl.’s Ex. 5 at 57–58 (Position
Description).) Jenkins’s second-level supervisor is Lyle Griffith; Jenkins’s third-level supervisor
is Joseph Nee. Since Nee was hired in 2005, Nee’s assignments to Jenkins include cleaning
boiler rooms and performing tasks late in the day in far reaches of the city, forcing Jenkins to
work beyond regular hours. (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 16, 17–18 (Jenkins Dep., Dec. 9, 2008).) Jenkins
testified that only he and one other co-worker have ever been asked to complete such
assignments. (Pl.’s Ex. 6 at 61 (Jenkins Aff.).)
Jenkins has also testified Nee used “racial overtones,” and terms like “you people” and
“boys” when speaking to Jenkins. (Def.’s Ex. 3 at 4–5 (Jenkins Dep., Jan. 23, 2009).) When
asked to comment on how Nee’s speech implicated Jenkins’s race, Jenkins testified that “[i]t is
the way [Nee] talked as somebody demeaning you. A white guy talking to a black guy in a racial
way saying it. The wat [sic] he is using his words.” (Id. at 5). But Jenkins also testified:
[Jenkins’s counsel:] Have you witnessed Joseph [Nee] act differently towards people not
of color than he has towards people – I’m sorry, acted differently towards people with
color than Caucasians?
[Jenkins:] No, I haven’t witnessed that.
(Def.’s Ex. 2 at 37 (Jenkins Dep., Dec. 9, 2008).) Nevertheless, around February 2007, Jenkins
filed several Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claims concerning these
allegations. (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 21 (Jenkins Dep., Dec. 9, 2008).)
Seven months later, two disagreements took place between Jenkins and Griffith. The first
2
was prompted by Jenkins’s absence from his assigned duty station. (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 26 (Jenkins
Dep. Dec. 9, 2008); (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 33 (Notice of Suspension).) The second took place later that
afternoon in Griffith’s office. Griffith stated that Jenkins entered the office and accused him of
disrespecting Jenkins. Jenkins also threatened Griffith, and allegedly called him a “big dummy
and faggot.” (Id. at 33.) According to Griffith, a DCHA plumber had to pull Jenkins out of the
office. (Id. at 34.) Jenkins testified he did not remember referring to Griffith as either “big
dummy” or “faggot,” but admits both he and Griffith “raised our voices.” (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 27
(Jenkins Dep., Dec. 9, 2008).)
On November 29, 2007, Griffith delivered a notice of disciplinary action to Jenkins,
ordering Jenkins to serve a 14-day suspension due to “[u]se of abusive or offensive language or
discourteous or disrespectful conduct toward the public or other employees.” (Id. at 33 (Notice
of Suspension).) In the notice, Griffith recounted the duty station absence and the confrontation
in Griffith’s office, and explained that “[d]ue to the fact that this is not the first time [Jenkins
has] made threatening remarks toward me, it is necessary to take appropriate action.” (Id. at 34.)
Jenkins filed complaints in this court alleging Nee and DCHA discriminated against
Jenkins in his work assignments, then suspended Jenkins in response to his EEOC claims.
II. ANALYSIS
Once there has been adequate time for discovery, a defendant may move for summary
judgment at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
The court must grant summary judgment if it concludes there is no genuine issue of material fact
in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Conversely, if there is sufficient evidence for a
3
reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party, the court must deny summary judgment; mere
allegations, however, are insufficient to defeat the motion. Id. at 248, 255–56.
An employee bringing a claim under § 1981 or § 1983 must make a prima facie showing
of discrimination or retaliation. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973);
see also Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 186 (1989) (§ 1981 case applying
McDonnell Douglas, superceded in part by the Civil Rights Act of 1991); see also Jo v. District
of Columbia, 582 F. Supp. 2d 51, 60 (D.D.C. 2008) (§ 1983 case applying McDonnell Douglas).
The employer can rebut this prima facie showing by presenting “some legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason” for the action in dispute. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. The
employee can then rebut the employer’s showing by demonstrating that the asserted reason is
pretextual. Id. at 805.
In determining whether to grant summary judgment, however, the D.C. Circuit has
stressed that a court need not consider whether the employee has made a prima facie showing
once the employer articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action in question.
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 493–494 (D.C. Cir. 2008).2 Under Brady, the
only question before the court is:
Has the employee produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that
the employer’s asserted non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason and
that the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex or national origin?
Id. at 494 (emphasis added).
2
Brady involved a race discrimination claim; the D.C. Circuit has also applied Brady to
retaliation claims. See, e.g., Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
4
The court has considered the record of the case, the motion for summary judgment, the
opposition thereto, and the parties’ oral arguments, and finds defendants are entitled to summary
judgment. Jenkins alleges he was discriminated against and retaliated against when he was
suspended, when he was ordered to clean boiler rooms, and when he was required to work
beyond regular hours. DCHA has offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for all these
actions. Jenkins has not submitted evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude these
reasons were pretext. Accordingly, DCHA is entitled to summary judgment.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that defendants’ motion for summary
judgment must be granted in full. An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
5