RICHARD W. ROBERTS Chief Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Laura Jones brought this employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, against former President Bush, the Director of the Office of Administration ("OA") in the Executive Office of the President ("EOP"), and nine other White House employees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding certain claims, to demonstrate that adverse employment actions have been taken, to establish a First Amendment violation, and to rebut sufficiently defendants' non-discriminatory reasons for their employment actions, the Court granted defendants' motion by minute order. This Memorandum Opinion sets forth the reasons for the decision.
"Plaintiff Jones (White) was employed by the [OA-EOP], assigned to the mailroom" in the West Wing of the White House, Amended Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief ("Am. Compl.") at 3 (page numbers designated by the Court), and "was the only white employee in a predominantly non-white mailroom." Id. at 7. Her official title was Lead Mail Assistant, Grade 8. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment ("Defs.' Mem."), Ex. B (Position Description) at 1. The major duties of her position were to:
Id., Ex. B at 2. Plaintiff's work hours were 10:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. See id., Ex. E (Information for Informal Complaint dated June 21, 2004) at 1. Her immediate supervisor was Restituto ("Rusty") Francisco (Asian American/Pacific Islander male); her second-line supervisor was Kenneth Haskins (African American male); her third-line supervisor was Kenneth Miller (white male); and her fourth-line supervisor was Jon Laurich (white male). See id., Ex. C (Laurich Aff.) at 1, Ex. Q (Motion for Findings and Conclusions Without a Hearing) at 5 & Ex. Z (Report of Investigation dated January 28, 2005) at 2, 10 and 13.
According to plaintiff, on March 24, 2004, the following events occurred:
Am. Compl. at 3-4.
Plaintiff believed that "the response[s] from her subordinate and her supervisor [were] disrespectful," and attributed the responses to "the fact that she was the only white staff member in the mailroom." Id. at 4. She reported this incident to Linda Sites (white female), the OA-EOP's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Director, on April 6, 2004.
Id., Ex. W at 4.
On April 15, 2004, EEO Director Sites met with plaintiff, Haskins, Francisco and an EEO counselor, Shalini Benson, allegedly "to discuss the situation and try to dissuade [p]laintiff from filing an EEO complaint." Am. Compl. at 4. Sites allegedly instructed Benson to counsel plaintiff, "and Benson did so, eventually advising [p]laintiff of her right[] to bring an EEO complaint." Id.
According to plaintiff, on June 9, 2004, she "told Haskins she was willing to volunteer to work her usual shift on June 11, [2004,] a National Day of Mourning in honour of the dead [sic] of President Reagan." Id. at 5. She stated that Haskins "would not confirm the shift she was expected to work," and, because of other commitments she could not work a shift other than her usual shift and "told Haskins to disregard her volunteer request." Id. "Haskins subsequently assigned [p]laintiff to a shift other than her usual one, such that she was unable to work." Id.
According to defendants, on June 9, 2004, plaintiff "volunteered to work on Friday, June 11, 2004, ... [was] placed on the work schedule for Friday, June 11, 2004,... [and was] notified to report for [her] regular scheduled tour of duty which [was] 10:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m." Defs.' Mem., Ex. D (June 16, 2004 Letter of Reprimand) at 1. Plaintiff neither submitted a request for leave for Friday, June 11, 2004, nor reported for duty as assigned, nor telephoned the office to request leave for the day, thus violating established leave procedures and OA Disciplinary Guidelines. Id., Ex. D at 1; see id., Ex. M (Haskins Aff.) at 2-3.
Also on June 9, 2004, plaintiff had a telephone conversation with Haskins about several matters, including an incident where two of her co-workers "were engaged in ... a personal conversation, with [plaintiff] present ... in Spanish," making plaintiff "feel uncomfortable." Defs.' Mem., Ex. D at 2. Plaintiff alleged that management was "attempting to force [her] to leave by placing a great deal of pressure on [her] and that [she was] the `last one around.'" Id., Ex. D at 2. Plaintiff concluded the conversation "by stating that `no spic is going to make [her] leave' or words to that effect." Id., Ex. D at 2. For this reason, plaintiff was charged with using offensive language, another violation of OA Disciplinary Guidelines. Id., Ex. D at 2; see id., Ex. M at 2.
On June 16, 2004, plaintiff received a Letter of Reprimand for her failure to follow established leave procedures and for her use of offensive language. Defs.' Mem., Ex. D at 1-2. It was "a formal disciplinary action" made part of plaintiff's "Official Personnel Folder ... for a period not to exceed one (1) year from June 11, 2004," the date on which plaintiff violated the OA-EOP leave procedures. Id., Ex. D at 2. This action prompted plaintiff to pursue an
According to plaintiff, she was "reassigned from the `West Wing' mailroom [to another mailroom at] 1800 G Street[, N.W.], a move that came with a rescission of her security clearance, a reduction in assignment prestige, and a change in work hours." Am. Compl. at 5. In addition, "[p]laintiff received a three-day suspension for `insolent behavior towards her supervisor' on July 15, 2004, and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) was placed in her file."
According to defendants, on July 15, 2004, Miller and Haskins informed plaintiff of her reassignment from the mailroom in the West Wing of the White House to another mailroom two blocks away at 1800 G Street, N.W., and of a one-hour adjustment of her work hours, from 10:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., to 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Defs.' Mem., Ex. F (Miller Aff.) at 1; id., Ex. G (Notice of Proposed Suspension dated July 27, 2004) at 1. Miller explained the reassignment as follows:
Id., Ex. F at 2; see id., Ex. M at 3-4. Six mailroom employees were reassigned at this time: one Hispanic Caucasian male, three African American males, one Asian (Filipino) female, and plaintiff, a Caucasian female. Id., Ex. F at 3.
Plaintiff "responded to the news of [her] pending reassignment with considerable hostility." Defs.' Mem., Ex. G at 1. Miller described the events as follows:
Id., Ex. G at 1.
Miller explained that the reassignment "to a new mailroom, in a different building... required a change to [plaintiff's] security access level and parking." Defs.' Mem., Ex. F at 3. Plaintiff was to be assigned a parking space on the Ellipse, six-blocks away from the 1800 G Street mailroom. Id., Ex. Z at 6. Miller suggested that he "walk [plaintiff] to her car to get her parking permit since she had been instructed to go home, and, besides, [he] was concerned because she was very emotional at the time." Id., Ex. F at 3; see id., Ex. Z at 6. Because plaintiff "parked on East Executive Avenue, which gave her immediate access back into the White House, and [because] she appeared upset," Miller "asked the Secret Service to ensure that [plaintiff] did not return to the White House." Id., Ex. F at 3.
Plaintiff's "insolent conduct towards supervisors" at the July 15, 2004 meeting with Miller and Haskins prompted Miller to propose a three-day suspension. Id., Ex. G at 1. Miller took into account "the circumstances and gravity of [her] misconduct" as well as the "aggravating factor that [she had] received a reprimand for misconduct only one month [earlier]." Id., Ex. G at 2. Specifically, on "June [16], 2004, [plaintiff] received a reprimand for failing to follow established leave procedures and for using offensive language in the workplace." Id., Ex. G at 2. Laurich sustained the charge of insolent behavior toward supervisors, and the suspension was effective on August 19, 2004, August 24, 2004 and August 25, 2004. Id., Ex. H (Notice of Decision on Proposed Suspension dated August 13, 2004) at 1.
Plaintiff notified Benson of her reassignment, and further alleged that, on July 20, 2004, her picture had been "distributed at meetings with [the] Secret Service ..., and that [Secret Service personnel] were told to deny her access to the White House complex." Id., Ex. E at 1. Plaintiff asked that she be "returned to her previous work schedule ... in the West Wing mailroom," and she sought a written apology from Miller. Id., Ex. E at 2. These matters were not resolved informally, and on July 30, 2004, plaintiff was advised in writing of her right to file a formal EEO complaint. Id., Ex. X (Letter from S. Benson to plaintiff dated July 30, 2004) at 1.
Plaintiff took sick leave the day after her reassignment. Id., Ex. F at 4. "[T]he OA Security Office's Deputy Director packed [plaintiff's] things and locked them in a secure area until she returned to work." Id., Ex. F at 4.
On July 30, 2004, plaintiff filed a formal complaint of discrimination. Am. Compl. at 2; see Defs.' Mem., Ex. I (Formal Complaint of Discrimination) at 1; see id., Ex.
Id., Ex. I (Letter from L. Sites, Director of Equal Employment Opportunity, OA-EOP, to plaintiff dated August 27, 2004) at 1.
Id., Ex. I at 1. The Director received no response from plaintiff; she then issued a formal acceptance of plaintiff's discrimination complaint and specified the claims accepted for investigation as set forth in her August 27, 2004 letter. Id., Ex. J (Letter from L. Sites to plaintiff dated September 13, 2004) at 1-2.
Plaintiff, who then was represented by counsel, amended her formal EEO complaint "to add an additional claim of discrimination on the basis of reprisal, race, color, and sex for the three day suspension issued on August 13, 2004[.]" Defs.' Mem., Ex. I (Letter from M.G. Farber, Esq., to L. Sites dated September 24, 2004). This additional claim was accepted for investigation, and plaintiff's complaint as amended read as follows:
Defs.' Mem., Ex. K (Letter from L. Sites to M.E. Henry, Esq., dated October 5, 2004) at 2; see id., Ex. R (Determination of Claims Before the Commission dated January 27, 2006) at 1. Again, the Director explained that the narrative statement attached to the original formal complaint would be treated as "background information for her complaint." Id., Ex. K at 1. Plaintiff was advised of her right to request, after receipt of the report of investigation of her complaint, either a final agency determination by the OA based on the investigation record or a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id., Ex. K at 3. Plaintiff requested a hearing, and the EEOC received her request on February 25, 2005. See id., Ex. R at 2.
According to plaintiff, she "was removed from the federal service on July 8, 2005, after a series of escalating, unwarranted disciplinary actions progressed against her." Am. Compl. at 5.
According to defendants, the decision to remove plaintiff from federal service was based on plaintiff's disorderly and insolent conduct and failure to follow instructions arising from an incident on May 20, 2005, involving her supervisor, Anita Cox-Harris, and a colleague, Danilo Ibanez. See Defs.' Mem, Ex. L (Notice of Proposed Removal dated June 1, 2005) at 1. The incident was described as follows:
Id., Ex. L at 1-2.
Plaintiff appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") on August 8, 2005. See Defs.' Mem., Ex. U (MSPB Form 185) at 4-5. Although plaintiff "proceeded to conduct discovery and argue her case before the [MSPB]," id., Ex. R at 2, she asked to "dismiss her appeal without prejudice to refiling in light of the ... pending proceeding before an administrative judge of the [EEOC]," the resolution of which may have rendered the MSPB appeal "unnecessary and/or moot." Id., Ex. V (December 16, 2005 Initial Decision) at 1. The MSPB administrative judge granted plaintiff's motion "[i]n the interests of fairness and judicial economy." Id., Ex. V at 2.
On December 14, 2005, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint before the EEOC by adding a claim pertaining to her removal from federal service. See Defs.' Mem., Ex. R at 2. Plaintiff asserted that her removal claim had been raised with the EEOC, in telephone calls she made and fax transmissions she sent to the EEOC's National Call Center in June 2005. See id., Ex. R at 2-3. According to plaintiff, Call Center staff instructed her to send documents to the Call Center, yet these submissions lacked instructions or a statement of plaintiff's intentions, and they failed to reach the ALJ. See id., Ex. R at 3. Nor did plaintiff follow up in any way before her attorney contacted the ALJ by telephone on December 5, 2005. Id. Noting that plaintiff had raised "exactly the same claim before the MSPB in August [2005]," id., Ex. R at 2, the ALJ determined that, "[i]f [she] sincerely believed that she had the same matter before the [EEOC], she acted improperly by filing the same claim before the [MSPB]." Id., Ex. R at 2. Further, the ALJ found that plaintiff's submissions to the EEOC's National Call Center did not amount to a proper motion to amend. See id., Ex. R at 3. Moreover, none of the submissions was served on the OA-EOP, and absent a certificate of service, the EEOC would not have accepted them. Id., Ex. R at 3. The ALJ denied plaintiff's motion to amend, so that "[t]he only claims before the [EEOC were] the original three claims accepted by the [OA-EOP] in 2004." Id., Ex. R at 4. Plaintiff's removal claim, then, was not before the EEOC.
Notwithstanding plaintiff's hearing request, the ALJ found that plaintiff "ha[d] not shown that there [were] any issues requiring a hearing[.]" Defs.' Mem., Ex. S (April 26, 2006 Decision) at 2. Accordingly, the ALJ made his decision based only on the Report of Investigation and the OA-EOP's unopposed motion for summary judgment. Id., Ex. S at 1-2.
The ALJ found that plaintiff failed to show that the OA-EOP's "explanations for the suspension, the reprimand or reassignment, were pretext for discrimination or retaliation," id., Ex. S at 6, and he granted summary judgment in the OA-EOP's favor, see id., Ex. S (April 26, 2006 Order Entering Judgment). On May 23, 2006, the OA-EOP issued its final order, and on June 22, 2006, plaintiff appealed it to the EEOC, which, in turn, affirmed the OA-EOP's final order. See Defs.' Mem., Ex. A
Plaintiff filed in this Court an amended complaint alleging four claims: retaliation for having exercised her free speech rights in the workplace; retaliation for having filed an EEO complaint in April 2004; racial discrimination in employment; and race-based hostile work environment.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that the amended complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. A motion to dismiss on the ground that a plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies properly is analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Hansen v. Billington, 644 F.Supp.2d 97, 102 (D.D.C.2009). Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. See Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court treats the factual allegations of a plaintiff's complaint as if they were true, and draws all reasonable inferences stemming from such factual allegations in plaintiff's favor. See Maljack Prods., Inc. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc., 52 F.3d 373, 375 (D.C.Cir.1995).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681 (D.C.Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1039, 130 S.Ct. 2064, 176 L.Ed.2d 418 (2010). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Although "detailed factual allegations" are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must furnish "more than labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" to provide the "grounds" of "entitle[ment] to relief[.]" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Plaintiff's complaint need not, however, plead facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema S.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569-70, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citing Swierkiewicz approvingly). Nor must the Court "accept inferences drawn by plaintiff[] if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint," Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994), or "a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation omitted); see also Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986). "[A] naked assertion ... gets the complaint close to stating a claim, but without some further factual enhancement it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
"If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) ..., matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). Here, in any event, defendants sought, in the alternative, summary judgment, which the Court generally should render "if the movant shows that
The party opposing a motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [her] pleading, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citing former FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (holding that the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts"); see also Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 101 F.3d 145, 150 (D.C.Cir.1996).
Under the local rules of this Court, an opposition to a summary judgment motion must "be accompanied by a separate concise statement of genuine issues setting forth all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated, which shall include references to the parts of the record relied on to support the statement." LCvR 7(h)(1).
Plaintiff alleged that defendants retaliated against her because she "spoke up on a
No government employer may compel its employees "to relinquish the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest." Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Ill., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); see Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006) ("The [Supreme] Court has made clear that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment."); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (stating that a government employer may not "condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression"). Additionally, "as a general matter[,] the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions... for speaking out." Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006) (citing Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 592, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998)) (additional citations omitted). In order to succeed on a claim of retaliation in violation of First Amendment free speech rights, plaintiff must prove "that her conduct was constitutionally protected, and that it was a `substantial' or `motivating' factor in the government's treatment of her." Velikonja v. Gonzales, 362 F.Supp.2d 1, 24 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cnty., Kan. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996)), aff'd in relevant part, 466 F.3d 122, 124 (D.C.Cir.2006) (per curiam); Lloyd v. City of St. Charles, No. 4:07CV01935, 2009 WL 485078, at *3 (E.D.Mo. Feb. 26, 2009) ("To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must prove that he engaged in protected activity and that this activity was a substantial or material factor in his employer's decision to take an adverse employment action."), aff'd, 360 Fed.Appx. 713 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam); see also Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 404 (4th Cir.2001).
With respect to the first element, in order to determine whether a public employee's speech is protected by the First Amendment, the D.C. Circuit instructs:
Winder v. Erste, 566 F.3d 209, 214 (D.C.Cir.2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Whether an employee's speech is constitutionally protected is a matter of law, see Hesse v. Town of
In this case, the matter about which plaintiff spoke was the handling of a package addressed to the President, the Vice President, and other senior White House staff following a supervisor's approval for bypassing established security procedures at the request of a White House staffer. Plaintiff argued that the timing of her speech makes its content a matter of public concern because "the Ricin attacks at the Capitol" occurred three months earlier, "and the Anthrax mailings had occurred only a few years prior" to this incident. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Opp'n") at 3. She explained that all mail at the White House was "to undergo significant screening and radiation processes" in order to protect high-profile targets such as the President of the United States, and that the March 24, 2004 incident arose from "a security breach and a potential threat to the health and safety of the President, his family, and his immediate staff." Id. In this way, she claimed to have spoken "outside of her official duties when she raised ... concerns," id. about the unscreened package because "she in no way dealt with security as part of her official functions[,]" id. at 4.
The safety of the President and others in the White House is certainly of grave importance. However, plaintiff's official job duties principally involved the delivery of mail. Only in the course of her official duties did plaintiff become aware of the package, and only as a mailroom employee did she inform her supervisors and others of the situation and learn that supervisors had authorized and ratified its unscreened delivery. Whether their judgment to bypass usual screening procedures was wise or not, they supervised delivery decisions
Furthermore, plaintiff in her opposition to defendants' motion has not demonstrated that her speech was a substantial or motivating factor prompting the alleged retaliation. Nor has plaintiff refuted the bases independent of her speech that defendants proffered for the official employment actions taken. The material facts were not in dispute and defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim.
Title VII provides that "[a]ll personnel actions affecting [federal government] employees ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, ... [or] sex." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a). It also "prohibits the federal government... from retaliating against employees for engaging in activity protected by Title VII." Montgomery v. Chao, 546 F.3d 703, 706 (D.C.Cir.2008); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) ("It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because [she] has ... made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter."). A hostile work environment claim is cognizable under Title VII "only when the offensive conduct `permeate[s] [the workplace] with 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.'" Childs-Pierce v. Util. Workers Union of Am., 383 F.Supp.2d 60, 77 (D.D.C.2005) (quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998)) (bracketed language in original), aff'd, 187 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C.Cir.2006) (per curiam).
Plaintiff alleged that, almost immediately after she "filed an EEO complaint ... [she] began experiencing harassment and hostile working conditions including a revocation of her high-level security clearance, letters of reprimand, a change in working location to a less prestigious and lower-ranked site, the loss of computer privileges, being prevented from retrieving her personal effects ..., and ultimately being placed under surveillance by the ... Secret Service" which "listed her in [its] `be on the look-out' bulletin." Am. Compl. at 6. She further alleged that the supervisors responsible for these actions "were aware of her [EEO] complaint as they were in the meeting with [EEO Director] Sites in which the complaint was discussed." Id.
Defendants argued that the retaliation claim must be dismissed because plaintiff "has not alleged that she engaged in protected activity." Defs.' Mem. at 29. Focusing solely on plaintiff's report in April 2004 of the March 24, 2004 unscreened box incident, defendants asserted that "complaining to the EEO Director ... and being `disrespected' do not rise to the level of activities protected under Title VII," id. and, therefore, the retaliation claim must be dismissed, id. at 30.
The record of this case included a document not only reflecting plaintiff's first contact with an EEO counselor on April 6, 2004, but also suggesting that she filed an informal discrimination complaint on April 15, 2004. See id. Ex. W. Defendants presented no argument that plaintiff's contacts with the EEO counselor on April 6, 2004 and April 15, 2004 are not protected activities for purposes of Title VII. Dismissal of the retaliation claim on this ground was not warranted.
Where, as here, a plaintiff offered no direct evidence of retaliation, the analysis proceeds as follows:
Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C.Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1198 (D.C.Cir.2008) (stating that a successful claim of retaliation under Title VII generally requires a plaintiff to show that "she suffered (i) a materially adverse action (ii) because ... she had brought or threatened to bring a discrimination claim"); Manuel v. Potter, 685 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 (D.D.C.2010) ("To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) [she] engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) the employer took an adverse personnel action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the two." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Presuming that plaintiff's contacts with the EEO counselor in April 2004 were protected activities for purposes of Title VII, and that defendants' actions occurred "almost immediately thereafter," Am. Compl. at 6, she made out the first and third elements of a prima facie retaliation claim. Two of plaintiff's supervisors presumably were aware of plaintiff's protected activity because they attended a meeting on April 15, 2004 regarding plaintiff's April 6, 2004 informal charge of discrimination. See Am. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff's retaliation claim failed, however, because she failed to demonstrate that she suffered a materially adverse action. Title VII's "antiretaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm." Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). "Unlike discriminatory actions, retaliatory actions need not be employment related or occur in the workplace, to be prohibited by Title VII ... nor must they result in a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of one's employment." McLaughlin v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 230, 239 (D.D.C.2011) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). In the context of retaliation, "[a]n employment action is materially adverse where it `well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.'" Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan, 601 F.3d 599, 607 (D.C.Cir.2010) (citing Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405).
According to defendants, plaintiff "has not alleged that Defendants' actions dissuaded her, or would have dissuaded a reasonable person, from making a charge of discrimination." Defs.' Mem. at 30. In fact, the Letter of Reprimand prompted plaintiff to file an informal complaint of discrimination on the same date. Wholly absent from plaintiff's submissions was any argument or evidence showing that she would have been dissuaded from pursuing a discrimination complaint if she had known that a Letter of Reprimand would issue. "Actionable retaliation claims are limited to those where an employer causes `material adversity,'" not lesser harms," Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151, 161 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quoting Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405), and plaintiff has not demonstrated that she suffered any identifiable harm, for example, by having lost pay or benefits because of this disciplinary action, see Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199, or opportunities for future career advancement, see Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313, 1321 (D.C.Cir.2009).
A transfer which strips an employee of responsibilities may be considered a materially adverse employment action, as its consequences may affect the conditions or privileges of the employee's employment. See Geleta v. Gray, 645 F.3d 408, 411-12 (D.C.Cir.2011) (finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that a transfer resulting in "a complete loss of supervisory responsibilities" and "narrower and less important programmatic responsibilities" than plaintiff held in the previous position is a materially adverse employment action); Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 902 (finding that a "drastic reduction in
Nor did plaintiff point to any evidence in the record to show that a one-hour change in work hours had "`materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of [plaintiff's] employment... such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm.'" Ginger v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340, 1343 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quoting Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C.Cir. 2002)), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1101, 129 S.Ct. 930, 173 L.Ed.2d 112 (2009); see Brodetski v. Duffey, 141 F.Supp.2d 35, 44 (D.D.C.2001) ("Although plaintiff allege[d] that, because of the schedule revisions, he was forced to come in two hours early for his shift, `a mere inconvenience' is not sufficiently adverse to sustain a prima facie case.") (citation omitted). Although plaintiff may have preferred the West Wing mailroom and the previous work hours, and was dissatisfied with the reassignment, such intangible harms did not rise to the level of adverse employment actions, and, therefore, did not support a Title VII retaliation claim. See Forkkio, 306 F.3d at 1130-31 (concluding that neither a reassignment depriving plaintiff of prestige nor a supervisor's alleged undermining of plaintiff's authority rises to the level of an adverse employment action where plaintiff's pay increased, benefits were unchanged, and job responsibilities did not significantly change); Jones v. Potter, 301 F.Supp.2d 1, 13 (D.D.C.2004) (finding that temporary transfer which did not result in loss of grade level or pay did not amount to an adverse employment action).
Plaintiff's reassignment resulted in "a lower security clearance," Pl.'s Op'n at 5, and by "security clearance," plaintiff presumably was referring to "a security badge that gave her access to the White House." Defs.' Mem., Ex. F at 3.
Plaintiff neither argued nor pointed to evidence in the record showing that a reasonable employee would have been dissuaded from pursuing a discrimination complaint if she had known of a reassignment to an equivalent position with no diminution in pay or benefits, a one-hour change in work hours, and an adjustment in security access level commensurate with the new position.
Although plaintiff alleged that she was placed under Secret Service surveillance because of her protected activity, she failed to describe the surveillance itself or any tangible harm stemming from it. Again, there was no showing by plaintiff that a reasonable employee would have been dissuaded from pursuing a discrimination claim had she known of Secret Service surveillance. See Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 803 F.Supp.2d 217, 254 (W.D.N.Y.2011) (finding that plaintiff who "has not put forth any evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact" as to whether "[b]eing monitored at work" would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity did not suffer adverse employment action). The surveillance, too, may simply have caused an intangible harm, such as embarrassment or loss of prestige, which cannot support a Title VII claim. See, e.g., Brown v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 828 F.Supp.2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding that being escorted off the premises may have embarrassed the plaintiff, but "such subjective injury is not an adverse action for the purposes of Title VII").
None of the employment actions allegedly taken in retaliation for plaintiff's pursuit of a discrimination claim amounted to a materially adverse action cognizable under Title VII. Even if plaintiff had succeeded in showing a materially adverse action taken in retaliation for her protected activity, she offered no response to defendants' legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for issuing the Letter of Reprimand, reassigning plaintiff to the 1800 G Street mailroom, changing her work hours, and adjusting her security access level to that commensurate with her new work location. No reasonable jury could infer from the record in this case retaliation due to plaintiff's pursuit of a discrimination claim. Accordingly, summary judgment for defendants was warranted on plaintiff's retaliation claim.
"[T]wo essential elements of a discrimination claim are that (i) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (ii) because of [her] race...." Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1196; Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 493 (D.C.Cir.2008). Plaintiff attributes the following allegedly adverse employment actions to her race: (1) her supervisors' disrespectful treatment and dismissive attitude towards her legitimate concerns relating to the March 24, 2004 unscreened box incident; (2) her transfer to the 1800 G Street mailroom; (3) the change in work hours; (4) the Letter of Reprimand;
Generally, an employment action does not amount to discrimination unless it has `materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of [plaintiff's] employment ... such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm,'" Ginger, 527 F.3d at 1343 (quoting Forkkio, 306 F.3d at 1131). For purposes of a race discrimination claim, "[t]he D.C. Circuit defines adverse employment action as `a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing significant change in benefits.'" Aliotta v. Bair, 576 F.Supp.2d 113, 120 (D.D.C.2008) (quoting Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286, 1293 (D.C.Cir.2003)), aff'd, 614 F.3d 556 (D.C.Cir.2010); see Forkkio, 306 F.3d at 1130 ("Actions short of an outright firing can be adverse within the meaning of Title VII, but not all lesser actions by employers count."). "While this [C]ircuit has not exhaustively defined what constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII, courts have consistently focused on ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, granting leave, promoting and compensating" employees, Dobbs v. Roche, 329 F.Supp.2d 33, 41 (D.D.C.2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), and have excluded "`[p]urely subjective injuries,' such as dissatisfaction with reassignment, public humiliation, or loss of reputation." Nichols v. Truscott, 424 F.Supp.2d 124, 136 (D.D.C.2006) (quoting Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 902).
The alleged disrespectful treatment plaintiff suffered, such as having a subordinate "wave[] a finger in her face... in front of other coworkers" and having supervisors "treat[] her with disrespect and ... dismiss[] her legitimate concerns," Am. Compl. at 7, did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (snubbing by supervisors and co-workers); Lawson v. Pepco, 721 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C.2010) (other employees who "spoke rudely to [plaintiff] and criticized his performance"); Vines v. Gates, 577 F.Supp.2d 242, 256 (D.D.C.2008) (co-workers who "mistreated [plaintiff] by engaging her in verbal altercations and not speaking to her"). Such acts of disrespect or rudeness are nothing like the ultimate employment decisions typically deemed adverse, and plaintiff made no showing that the conduct of her coworkers or supervisors negatively affected the terms or conditions of her employment.
Plaintiff asserted that her position at the 1800 G Street mailroom "had fewer responsibilities, more limited supervisory authority, and a lower security clearance." Pl.'s Opp'n at 5. Further, she argued that the reassignment could be deemed an adverse employment action absent reduced pay or benefits if, for example, "it can be shown that the position ... would result in fewer career advancements." Id. The 1800 G Street mailroom location is not as prestigious as the West Wing location, she argued, and "[i]n a city where distance is inversely proportionate to power and authority, the transfer also indicated a significant loss of prestige for Plaintiff and her position." Id.
Furthermore, the intangible harms of loss of prestige and dissatisfaction with a work assignment simply did not rise to the level of adverse employment actions. See O'Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 913 (7th Cir.2004) ("[B]eing shifted to an essentially equivalent job that [an employee does] not happen to like as much does not a Title VII claim create."); Forkkio, 306 F.3d at 1130-32 (concluding that neither a reassignment depriving plaintiff of prestige nor a supervisor's alleged undermining of plaintiff's authority rises to the level of an adverse employment action where plaintiff's pay increased, benefits were unchanged, and job responsibilities did not change significantly); Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126, 1136 (D.C.Cir.2002) (finding that "public humiliation or loss of reputation does not constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII"); Lloyd, 2009 WL 485078, at *5-6 (finding that police officer's loss of prestige stemming from previous position in Detective Bureau, loss of cell phone, take home car and clothing allowance, and loss of income from off-duty work with reassignment were not adverse employment actions); Riding v. Kaufmann's Dep't Store, 220 F.Supp.2d 442, 466 (W.D.Pa.2002) (finding that reassignment from fashion photographer to merchandise photographer upon return from maternity leave "bruised plaintiff's ego" but did not constitute tangible adverse employment action); see also Bouknight v. District of Columbia, 680 F.Supp.2d 96, 104 (D.D.C.2010) (finding that plaintiff who was transferred and "offered no evidence whatsoever to substantiate... conclusory allegations of inconvenience and financial loss" did not establish adverse employment action).
Plaintiff was no more successful in showing that a one-hour change in her work hours comprises an adverse employment action. It was evident that plaintiff was dissatisfied with her new schedule, but, at most, the new work hours caused her some inconvenience. She failed to establish that this minor adjustment had any impact, adverse or otherwise, on her pay, benefits, or other terms of her employment. See Mylett v. City of Corpus Christi, 97 Fed.Appx. 473, 476 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam) ("[O]ppressive change of hours, denial of particular shifts, and humiliation ... are not adverse employment actions."); Grube v. Lau Indus., 257 F.3d 723, 728 (7th Cir.2001) (change in working hours did not rise to the level of adverse employment action where change was unaccompanied by any change in pay, title, or significantly diminished job responsibilities); Bouknight, 680 F.Supp.2d at 104 (lateral reassignment which caused plaintiff "substantial inconvenience," absent "evidence ... to substantiate... conclusory allegations of inconvenience and financial loss" or other
Nor has plaintiff succeeded in demonstrating an adverse affect on the terms and conditions of her employment arising from the change in security access level associated with her reassignment to the 1800 G Street mailroom. Plaintiff may have been unhappy with having her access to the West Wing denied, but "not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action." Russell v. Principi, 257 F.3d 815, 818 (D.C.Cir.2001) (citations omitted).
The Letter of Reprimand reflected no impact on plaintiff's pay, grade, benefits, responsibilities, or opportunities for advancement. In such circumstances, a letter of reprimand which, as in this case, had no affect on the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment did not constitute an adverse employment action. See Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199 (concluding that letter of counseling, letter of reprimand and unsatisfactory performance review were not adverse employment actions); Stewart, 275 F.3d at 1136 (noting that "formal criticisms or reprimands, without additional disciplinary action such as a change in grade, salary, or other benefits do not constitute adverse employment actions"); Kline v. Springer, 602 F.Supp.2d 234, 242 (D.D.C. 2009) (finding that a letter of reprimand was not an adverse employment action), aff'd sub nom. Kline v. Berry, 404 Fed. Appx. 505 (D.C.Cir.2010) (per curiam); Runkle v. Gonzales, 391 F.Supp.2d 210, 225 (D.D.C.2005) ("Formal letters of admonishment and disciplinary notices that have no effect on an employee's grade or salary level, job title, duties, benefits or work hours, for example, do not constitute adverse actions.").
Insofar as plaintiff alleged she "suffered several other adverse employment actions" in violation of Title VII, see Am. Compl. at 7, defendants argued that she failed to exhaust these claims administratively before filing this lawsuit. See Defs.' Mem. at 14. Specifically, defendants referred to plaintiff's apparent attempts to base her claim of discrimination on a significant increase of her workload following the filing of an informal EEO charge in April 2004 and receipt of an "official write-up," neither of which was included in the formal EEO complaint. Id. Plaintiff responded that "these acts of discrimination were named and discussed in detail elsewhere in the brief and were specifically pleaded in [her] original complaint before the EEOC." Pl.'s Opp'n at 1. Presumably, plaintiff's reference to "other adverse employment actions" included not only the alleged disrespectful treatment received from her co-workers, reassignment to the 1800 G Street mailroom, change in work hours, and the Letter of Reprimand, see Am. Compl. at 7, but also allegations pertaining to her increased workload, security clearance, and three-day suspension, id. at
"[B]efore filing suit, an individual alleging that a federal agency engaged in employment discrimination must seek administrative adjudication of the claim." Scott v. Johanns, 409 F.3d 466, 468 (D.C.Cir.2005). The D.C. Circuit summarizes the administrative process as follows:
Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56, 58 (D.C.Cir.2010). "In filing a civil action in district court following an EEO complaint, an employee may only file claims that are like or reasonably related to the allegations of the [EEO] charge and grow[] out of such allegations." Baird v. Snowbarger, 744 F.Supp.2d 279, 286-87 (D.D.C.2010) (quoting Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)), vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C.Cir.2011).
Based on plaintiff's formal EEO complaint, as amended, the OA-EOP's EEO Director accepted for investigation a claim that three actions constituted discrimination based on race, color, sex and reprisal for prior protected activity in April 2004: the June 16, 2004 letter of reprimand, the July 19, 2004 reassignment to the 1800 G Street mailroom, and the three-day suspension for insolence toward her supervisors. The nine-page narrative statement submitted with plaintiff's formal EEO complaint provided greater detail of the circumstances surrounding the March 24, 2004 unscreened box incident, increased workload following the filing of an informal EEO charge in April 2004, and receipt of an "official write-up," that is, the June 16, 2004 Letter of Reprimand. The statement also mentioned her transfer, change of work hours, the taking of a pass granting her access to the West Wing (and issuance of a new pass giving her access to the 1800 G Street mailroom), and distribution of her picture to the Secret Service. In other words, all of the actions plaintiff alleges were discriminatory appeared in some form in nine-page narrative statement. A fair reading of this statement reflected that plaintiff adequately exhausted her administrative remedies as to these actions, which either are described in the narrative statement and are like or are reasonably related to the allegations of her formal EEO complaint.
Had these actions been treated as separate claims, however, none would have succeeded, as none constitutes an adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII. As is stated above, neither the alleged
Plaintiff's amended complaint and opposition to defendants' motion offered no detail as to plaintiff's workload before the initiation of her discrimination claim, the link between the alleged increase in workload to plaintiff's race, or the impact of the increased workload on plaintiff. "Scarce resources and increased workloads are familiar complaints in virtually every workplace and every industry, but they do not give rise to a discrimination claim under Title VII," Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F.Supp.2d 56, 73 (D.D.C.2007) (citations omitted), and plaintiff made no showing that an increased workload amounted to an adverse employment action. See Ndondji v. InterPark Inc., 768 F.Supp.2d 263, 282 (D.D.C.2011) (finding claims that plaintiff "was deprived of a reasonable number of attendants compared to other employees and that he was over-worked" did not amount to adverse employment actions); Brodetski, 141 F.Supp.2d at 45 (finding no adverse employment actions in the claim that defendants distributed workload unevenly by overloading plaintiff with assignments).
Nothing in the record suggested that plaintiff's suspension deprived her of pay or otherwise caused her financial hardship or loss of benefits or privileges. Under these circumstances, the three-day suspension did not comprise an adverse employment action sufficient to sustain a race discrimination claim under Title VII. See Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150, 158 (5th Cir.2000) (administrative leave with pay pending investigation and return to pre-leave position); Dodge v. City of Belton, Mo., No. 10-0038, 2011 WL 529708, at *3 (W.D.Mo. Feb. 4, 2011) (suspension with pay, absent argument as to "how his suspension with pay produced a material employment disadvantage"); Brown, 828 F.Supp.2d at 9 (suspension with pay pending investigation for gross misconduct); Harper v. Potter, 456 F.Supp.2d 25, 29 (D.D.C.2006) (seven-day disciplinary suspension that allowed plaintiff to remain on the job and in pay status); see also Peltier v. United States, 388 F.3d 984, 988 (6th Cir.2004) ("We have held that a suspension with pay and full benefits pending a timely investigation into suspected wrongdoing is not an adverse employment action." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Practically nothing is known of the surveillance plaintiff alleged was conducted, and plaintiff failed to articulate any tangible harm stemming from it. It does not appear that Secret Service officers denied plaintiff entry to her assigned workplace or otherwise interfered with her work or personal life. Absent any showing that this alleged surveillance had any impact at all, or that the surveillance was initiated because of plaintiff's race, it does not support a Title VII claim.
Even if plaintiff had managed to demonstrate an adverse employment action, at the summary judgment stage the Court would "resolve one central question: 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,
Plaintiff allegedly "was repeatedly and severely harassed in a pervasive manner, including disrespect by multiple coworkers in front of others, because she was the only white staffer in the mailroom." Am. Compl. at 8. For example, plaintiff's "subordinate waved a finger in her face and told her to back off." Id. This conduct "was offensive to [p]laintiff, and would likely be offensive to a reasonable person in a similar situation due to its ongoing and humiliating nature." Id. As a result of coworkers' behavior, plaintiff "was stripped of any credibility she once had with her coworkers, leading to an unreasonable interference with her ability to do her job." Id. at 8-9. Defendants argued that this hostile work environment claim must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. See Defs.' Mem. at 32-33. Plaintiff countered that "[e]ach claim of race ... discrimination ... was either contained properly in the original EEO complaint or accepted one month later by EEO as a permissible amendment to [p]laintiff's original complaint." Pl.'s Opp'n at 2.
As is discussed above, "before filing suit, an individual alleging that a federal agency engaged in employment discrimination must seek administrative adjudication of the claim." Scott, 409 F.3d at 468. The exhaustion requirement is less stringent for hostile work environment claims than it is for discrete claims of discrimination or retaliation, however. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (concluding "that a Title VII plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts must file his charge within the appropriate time period.... [H]owever, [a hostile work environment claim] will not be time barred so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period"); see also Nurriddin v. Goldin, 382 F.Supp.2d 79, 107 n. 10 (D.D.C.2005) (recognizing that, "[u]nlike discrete claims of discrimination and retaliation, the exhaustion requirement on a hostile work environment claim is less stringent... [and the p]laintiff need only have filed an EEO complaint alleging some of the claims that comprise the hostile work environment claim"), aff'd sub nom. Nurriddin v. Griffin, 222 Fed.Appx. 5 (D.C.Cir.2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1243, 128 S.Ct. 1473, 170 L.Ed.2d 296 (2008). A plaintiff may adequately exhaust administrative remedies without specifically alleging a hostile work environment claim in her formal EEO complaint if the hostile work environment claim is "like or reasonably related to the allegations ... [in the formal EEO complaint] and grows out of such allegations." Roberson v. Snow, 404 F.Supp.2d 79, 96 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Jones v. Billington, 12 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.1997));
Nowhere in the administrative proceedings did plaintiff mention, suggest, or pursue a discrete hostile work environment claim. A fair reading, though, of the nine-page narrative statement plaintiff submitted with her formal EEO complaint, a document which OA-EOP's EEO Director accepted as background information to support the discrimination claim, reflected that plaintiff adequately exhausted her administrative remedies as to her hostile work environment claim. The events described in the narrative are like or reasonably related to the allegations of her formal EEO complaint. That plaintiff survives defendants' exhaustion argument did not mean success, however. The hostile work environment claim failed because the record failed to substantiate it.
"A hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice," Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and a successful claim generally requires that a plaintiff "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.'" Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1201 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (internal citation omitted)). "[T]he workplace environment becomes `hostile' for purposes of Title VII and legal relief [available] only when the offensive conduct `permeate[s] [the workplace] with 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.'" Childs-Pierce, 383 F.Supp.2d at 77 (quoting Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81, 118 S.Ct. 998) (bracketed language in original); Singletary v. District of Columbia, 351 F.3d 519, 526 (D.C.Cir.2003) (stating that a hostile environment exists "[w]hen the workplace is permeated with `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.'") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The behavior must be "so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment." Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81, 118 S.Ct. 998 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A court looks to the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, its offensiveness, and whether it interferes with an employee's work performance. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998); Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1201. "Everyone can be characterized by sex, race, ethnicity, or (real or perceived) disability; and many bosses are harsh, unjust, and rude." Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 377 (2d Cir.2002). A court must therefore "exclude from consideration personnel decisions that lack a linkage or correlation to the claimed ground of discrimination," lest "the federal courts ... become a court of personnel appeals." Id.
Aside from plaintiff's conclusory allegations of events purportedly in support of her hostile work environment claim, she pointed to no document or other evidence in the record which, viewed objectively, establishes the existence of a hostile work environment. She thus failed to meet her burden on summary judgment. See, e.g., Morgan v. Vilsack, 715 F.Supp.2d 168, 184 (D.D.C.2010) ("As severe as the subjective
A hostile work environment claim "is not a cause of action for the ordinary tribulations of the workplace ... and not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action." Baird, 744 F.Supp.2d at 295 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). And "hostile behavior, no matter how unjustified or egregious, cannot support a claim of hostile work environment unless there exists some linkage between the hostile behavior and the plaintiff's membership in a protected class." Na'im v. Clinton, 626 F.Supp.2d 63, 73 (D.D.C. 2009). Aside from conclusory allegations of the complaint, nothing links the actions comprising the hostile work environment claim to plaintiff's race. Accordingly, summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was warranted.
Plaintiff has not established a claim of retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights or for her engagement in activity protected under Title VII. Nor has plaintiff demonstrated discrimination based on her race or a hostile work environment. Accordingly, the defendants' motion has been granted. A final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
