Barot v. Embassy of the Republic of the Zam.
Decision Date | 08 March 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13–0451 (ABJ) |
Citation | 299 F.Supp.3d 160 |
Parties | Dolores BAROT, Plaintiff, v. EMBASSY OF the REPUBLIC OF the ZAMBIA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Denise Marie Clark, Jeremy Greenberg, Clark Law Group, PLLC, Washington, DC, Leonardo Abueg Canseco, Canseco Law Group, LLC, Rockville, MD, for Plaintiff.
Laina Catherine Lopez, Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Dolores Barot brought this action against the Embassy of the Republic of Zambia alleging that defendant discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. when it paid her less than male employees, and that it discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ("ADEA") when it terminated her employment. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] at 4. Plaintiff later amended her complaint to include an allegation that defendant violated the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law, D.C. Code § 32–1301, et seq. ("DCWPCL"), when it failed to pay her wages she was owed after her termination. 1st Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 17–1] ¶¶ 63–65; 2d Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 60] ¶¶ 87–90. On September 8, 2017, the Court granted defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the DCWPCL count (Count IV), concluding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Pending before the Court is defendant's motion for summary judgment on Counts I, II, and III. Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 80] ("Def.'s Mot."); Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–1] ("Def.'s Mem.")1 While it appears that plaintiff's termination was hasty, and one could take issue with the quality of the managerial decision making involved, plaintiff has not come forward with evidence that would enable a reasonable jury to conclude that she was terminated because of her age, or in retaliation for complaining about gender discrimination. So the Court will grant defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining counts.
Plaintiff began working for defendant as a secretary in January 1998. Def.'s SOF ¶ 1; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 1. Her base salary was $1,300.00 per month, and she was eligible for an annual salary increase of $600.00 if the Embassy was satisfied with her performance during the year. Def.'s SOF ¶ 21; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 21. As of the time of her termination, plaintiff's monthly salary was $3,150.00. Def.'s SOF ¶ 26; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 26.
During her employment, plaintiff's supervisor was either the Embassy's Second Secretary (Accounts)—originally Paul Mulenga, and then Frank Mbewe—or its First Secretary (Accounts)—Mbewe. Def.'s SOF ¶ 2; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 2. Over time, as plaintiff saw it, she took on additional duties she described as "accounting duties," Pl.'s SOF ¶ 27; Ex. 3 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–3] at 7, 16, and, she wrote a memorandum to the Ambassador on September 7, 2009 requesting an increase in her salary. Def.'s SOF ¶ 27; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 27; Ex. 18 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–5] ("Sept. 7 Barot Memo"). She also provided copies of the memorandum to Mbewe; Felix C. Mbula, the First Secretary (Political & Administrative); and the Embassy's Minister Counsellor, Alfred Chioza. See Sept. 7 Barot Memo; Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–3] at 104:9–14.3
In the memo, plaintiff advocated for a salary increase commensurate with her "extra work load," and she claimed that four other individuals had been treated in that manner. Def.'s SOF ¶ 27; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 27; see also Sept. 7 Barot Memo. Plaintiff's memo had this to say about the four others:
Sept. 7 Barot Memo; see also Def.'s SOF ¶ 28; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 28 ( ). Plaintiff also maintained that she deserved the increase because the fact that she had created a computer template to substitute for paper forms had saved the Embassy money:
I have been doing my job exceedingly, and the Embassy have [sic ] been saving a lot, which savings is more than the 10% of my one month's salary. These savings are from purchase of Payment Vouchers and Backing Sheets because prior to my hiring, all these forms are bought from Printing Companies which the Embassy is no longer doing from then on.
Sept. 7 Barot Memo.
On September 9, 2009, plaintiff met with Mbewe and Mbula to discuss her requested salary increase. Def.'s SOF ¶ 31; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 31. Plaintiff's request was denied, and Mbewe, Mbula, and plaintiff agreed that she would return to her ordinary secretarial duties instead. See Def.'s SOF ¶ 31; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 31; Barot Dep. at 106:12–16; id. at 107:19–108:9.
Before she left for the day, though, plaintiff prepared and delivered another memorandum to Mbewe and Mbula. She informed them that there was a shortage of the hard copy payment voucher forms that she would now need in light of her return to "secretary only" duties. Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 32–33; Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 32–33; see Ex. 20 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–5] ("Sept. 9 Barot Memo");4 Barot Dep. at 122:22–123:6 ( ). Plaintiff had created and then continuously used the computerized version of the form during the time period that led up to the meeting. But after the meeting, she gave a memorandum to her supervisors advising them that they would need to order the paper forms again, repeating her point that she had been saving the Embassy money. See, e.g. , Barot Dep. at 115:20–116:6 () ; id. at 123:18–124:3 ( A. ) ; id. at 156:17–157:17 () ; see also Sept. 9 Barot Memo.
According to defendant, Mbewe did not have access to the computerized forms on his computer, but he could access them on plaintiff's computer. Def.'s SOF ¶ 34. He logged on to plaintiff's computer after she left work on September 9, but he was unable to find the form, and he concluded that the payment voucher template had been deleted. Id. He then informed Mbula that plaintiff had deleted the template. Id. & n.52; see Ex. 21 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–5] ("Brief on the Case of Dolores Barot") at 2.5 The "mission administration" made a decision that night to place plaintiff on administrative leave immediately pending the arrival of the Ambassador. See Brief on the Case of Dolores Barot at 2.
The next morning, September 10, 2009, Mbula entered plaintiff's office. Def.'s SOF ¶ 36; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 36. After he asked plaintiff whether she was a member of a labor union, to which she responded "no," he presented her with a letter dated the same day signed by Chioza, placing her on indefinite administrative leave. Def.'s SOF ¶ 36; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 36. Mbula asked her to gather her things, and he escorted her out of the office. Def.'s SOF ¶ 36; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 36.6
The September 10, 2009 letter stated:
Ex. 22 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–5] ("Administrative Leave Letter").
In a letter dated November 5, 2009, defendant informed plaintiff that she had been terminated. See Ex. 24 to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 80–5] ("Termination Letter"). That letter stated in relevant part:
Id. Plaintiff was 62 years old when she was terminated, and she was the oldest locally engaged staff member employed at the Embassy. Def.'s SOF ¶ 4; see Pl.'s SOF ¶ 4. On approximately November 23, 2009, the Embassy hired Nischel Pedapudi, a male who was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Klotzbach-Piper v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
... ... Civil Action No. 18-1702 (RC) United States District ... up) (citation omitted)); cf. also Barot v. Embassy of ... Republic of Zambia , 299 ... ...
- Bernier v. Trump
-
Dodson v. United States Capitol Police
... ... Civil Action No. 18-2680 (RDM) United States District ... Title VII protects informal complaints,” Barot v ... Embassy of Republic of Zambia , 299 ... ...
-
Dodson v. United States Capitol Police
... ... Civil Action No. 18-2680 (RDM) United States District ... Title VII protects informal complaints,” Barot v ... Embassy of Republic of Zambia , 299 ... ...