Blackmon v. Garland
| Decision Date | 12 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-cv-0034 (FYP) |
| Parties | ELIZABETH K. BLACKMON, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, Defendant.[1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Elizabeth Blackmon is over 40 years old and worked at the Department of Justice's Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) as a Labor-Management Relations (“LMR”) Specialist from October 1991 to October 2011. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint), ¶¶ 9, 11. On January 26, 2021, Blackmon initiated this action, alleging that between 2007 and 2011, her employer fostered a hostile work environment and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and also discriminated against her based on her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. See generally id., ¶¶ 90-125.
BOP moves for summary judgment on some of Blackmon's claims based on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and moves to dismiss the remaining allegations for failure to state a claim. See generally ECF No. 9 (Def. Mot. to Dismiss and Partial Summ. J.) [hereinafter Def. Mot.]; ECF No. 9-3 (Def. Mem. in Supp. of Def. Mot.) [hereinafter Def. Mem.]. For the following reasons, the Court will grant BOP's motion.
I. Factual Background
Blackmon alleges that she was mistreated in her workplace for years providing a laundry list of discriminatory and retaliatory acts perpetrated by her supervisors based on her age and her protected activity. Her allegations can be grouped into four categories:
a Increased Workload and Unfair Treatment
Blackmon alleges that, in January 2008, she was “made responsible for the workload of three to five people.” See Compl., ¶ 22. According to Blackmon, when she requested assistance or extra time to complete the work, she was “given a difficult time.” See id., ¶ 59. Additionally, she alleges that she was criticized for not completing work assignments when she was out of the office. See id., ¶¶ 63-69. For instance, in 2009, her supervisor allegedly blamed her for the late submission of an assignment that had come in while she was on leave. See id., ¶ 64. She also alleges that she was held responsible and blamed for her inability to respond during leaves of absence on two other unspecified occasions. See id., ¶ 66.
Beyond workload, Blackmon alleges that between 2009 and 2011, BOP required her to work in a small area and denied her request for more desirable office space, despite her seniority. See id., ¶¶ 55-56. Blackmon further alleges that a younger, less experienced employee and an intern were given offices over her. See id., ¶ 57. She also asserts that in October 2009, her supervisor sent an email stating that she had “ordered Blackberry cellphones for . . . ‘all specialists in each office, EXCEPT for Liz [Blackmon].'” See id., ¶ 31 (alterations in original). When Blackmon eventually did get a BlackBerry, she complains that it took “approximately two months to acquire one, although the process should have taken less than one week.” See id., ¶ 32.
b. Supervisory Management and Scrutiny
Blackmon alleges that her supervisors subjected her to scrutiny and micromanagement. In March 2009, her then-supervisor began requiring Blackmon to submit daily reports, and, on March 16, 2009, placed her on an “informal” Performance Improvement Plan. See id., ¶¶ 25-26. Blackmon also contends that she was “questioned” about her use of telework. See id., ¶ 84.
c. Professional Development Opportunities
Blackmon alleges that her supervisors denied her opportunities to develop new skills and connections. For example, she asserts that because of her workload, she lost the opportunity to teach “at the National Advocacy Center (‘NAC') and the Regional Office as well as participating as a reviewer with the Program Review Office.” See id., ¶ 48. In the spring of 2011, a Human Resource Administrator from another office “requested that Plaintiff teach [a course] the week of April 4-8, 2011,” but her supervisor denied her that opportunity “‘[i]n light of [her] expressed concerns regarding [her] workload ....'” See id., ¶¶ 49-50. Blackmon also contends that on March 25, 2011, her supervisor saw, but did not respond to, her request to attend a Leadership, Excellence, and Achievement Program (“LEAP”) training. See id., ¶ 83. Moreover, Blackmon complains that in May 2011, toward the end of her tenure at BOP, she was shut out of quarterly meetings that she had previously attended. See id., ¶¶ 85-86.
According to Blackmon, See id., ¶ 72. Blackmon further asserts that her “supervisors stopped [her] from communicating with the Assistant Director's office and the Justice Management Division,” although she had previously served as a point of contact for those offices. See id., ¶¶ 80-81.
d. Performance Evaluations
Blackmon believes that her “performance evaluations . . . did not adequately reflect her workload and accomplishments.” See id., ¶ 27. “[I]n or around April 2009,” Blackmon's supervisor assigned her “a ‘fully satisfactory' rating, the middle ranking between ‘unsatisfactory' and ‘outstanding.'” See id., ¶ 29. “In or around July 2010,” Blackmon spoke with the Chief of her office “regarding her evaluation and was told that he had instructed his Deputy . . . to correct the evaluation,” but the Deputy did not do so. See id., ¶¶ 33, 35-38. She also alleges that “[a] second unfair rating came in or around November 2010 when [she] was again rated ‘satisfactory.'” See id., ¶ 34. Although her supervisor increased this rating to “exceeds” after Blackmon raised concerns, she believes “she was entitled to a rating of ‘outstanding.'” See id.
According to Blackmon, because of those “unfavorable evaluations and lack of awards in her record . . . [she] ha[s] been passed over for numerous positions as she could not make the Best Qualified (‘BQ') list . . . despite her high qualifications and competitive application packet.” See id., ¶ 41. She complains specifically of six lateral positions for which she applied but was not selected. See id., ¶¶ 42-47. After one non-selection, “[i]n or around November 2007,” Blackmon contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) counselor and participated in mediation. See id., ¶ 18. She alleges, however, that “then-Deputy Assistant Director of Human Resources Juan Castillo” made “threats . . . concerning her and her husband's jobs” if she pursued the EEO process. See id., ¶ 19. II. Procedural History
In November 2007 and July 2009, Blackmon raised, but did not pursue, allegations of discriminatory treatment with EEO counselors. See id., ¶¶ 18-19, 30. Then, on December 13, 2010, Blackmon contacted an EEO counselor concerning discriminatory treatment, and later filed a formal complaint on March 29, 2011. See id., ¶ 78; ECF No. 9-2 (Def. Statement of Material Facts), ¶¶ 1-2 (citing ECF No. 9-4 (Decl. of Darrel C. Waugh (July 1, 2021) (“Waugh Decl.”)), ¶¶ 2-3); ECF No. 11-65 (Pl. Statement of Material Facts), ¶ 2; see also Waugh Decl., Ex. B. Blackmon's formal EEO complaint stated that she was discriminatorily not selected for the positions of Executive Assistant, Supervisory Labor Management Relations Specialist, Diversity Management Administrator, Management Analyst, Deputy Bureau Personnel Director, and Curriculum Development Manager. See Def. SMF, ¶ 3 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 4). The EEO investigation concluded in May 2012. See id., ¶ 6 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 11).[2]
Blackmon then requested a hearing before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See id., ¶ 8 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 12). On March 19, 2013, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an Acknowledgment and Order (“A&O”) governing Blackmon's case. See id., ¶ 9 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 12). The A&O notified Blackmon that she had 30 days to identify any claims the agency had dismissed during the investigative process, and to comment on the appropriateness of each dismissal. See id., ¶ 10 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 13). Blackmon did not file anything opposing the dismissal of any claims. See id., ¶ 11 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 13). The A&O further instructed that, if Blackmon wished to amend her EEO complaint, she should submit a motion as soon as possible, and warned that a motion to amend filed late in the process might be denied. See id., ¶ 12 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 14). Blackmon did not file any timely motion to amend. See id., ¶ 13 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 14).
On June 30, 2017, the agency filed its Motion for Summary Judgment before the ALJ. See id., ¶ 14 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 15). Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Motion to Stay Deadlines. See id., ¶ 15 (citing Waugh Decl., ¶ 16). The ALJ construed Blackmon's filing as a Motion to Amend her claims and denied it as untimely. See id., ¶ 16 (citing Waugh Decl. 17). After some additional back and forth, on September 16, 2020, Blackmon informed the ALJ that “she ha[d] decided to withdraw her request for a hearing . . . and intend[ed] to file her complaint in U.S. District Court.” See Waugh Decl., ¶ 21 & Ex. M.
Blackmon filed this suit on January 6, 2021. Her Complaint contains four counts: (I) retaliation for engaging in protected activity; (II) retaliatory hostile work environment; (III) disparate treatment on the basis of age; and (IV) hostile work environment on the basis of age. See Compl., at 19-24. On July 6, 2021, BOP moved for summary judgment on certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial