Byrd v. Dist. of Columbia

Decision Date16 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. 1:06–cv–00522 (RCL).,1:06–cv–00522 (RCL).
Citation113 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 71,807 F.Supp.2d 37
PartiesGarrina BYRD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Abby Morrow Richardson, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC, Gary T. Brown, Gary T. Brown & Associates, Washington, DC, Timothy B. Fleming, Daniel E. Arciniegas, Herman N. Johnson, Jr., Jon C. Goldfarb, Robert F. Childs, Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Alex Karpinski, Office of the Attorney General–District of Columbia, Washington, DC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.I. INTRODUCTION

This dispute originates from allegations of sexual harassment by former female employees of the District of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) against their male supervisors. Plaintiffs Garrina Byrd, Demera Gaskins, Annette Burns, and Carmen Jean–Baptiste bring this suit against the District of Columbia seeking damages for unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination that each suffered during the course of their employment. Plaintiffs allege several violations of numerous provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964, the D.C. Human Rights Act, the D.C. Whistleblowers Protection Act, and the First and Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The severity of grievances ranges from complaints of inappropriate sexual comments to accusations of unwanted touching and fondling to allegations of the most serious kind—pervasive sexual assault. The factual narratives not only involve descriptions of abhorrent individual victimization but also collectively illustrate insidious systematic problems within DPR's administrative body. Despite DPR's outwardly altruistic participation in welfare-to-work programs, plaintiffs allege that DPR's pattern of intentional neglect in providing adequate training and supervision and its willful refusal to aid disadvantaged employees evince its ongoing participation in systematic discrimination. Plaintiffs complain that gross mismanagement within DPR's administration has significantly contributed to their injuries. They furthermore point to the lack of remedial options available to mitigate the harassment they have suffered. A review of the background of the case, the governing law, the parties' arguments, and the Court's reasoning in resolving any disputes is set forth below.

II. BACKGROUND

Because of the sheer volume of detail required in a case involving four individual plaintiffs and several multi-component counts, the parties have submitted extensive evidence in support of their arguments. The Court sets forth below only those facts and details from the procedural history necessary to resolve the arguments that follow.

A. Factual History

All four plaintiff-employees occupied different positions at DPR for varying durations between 2000 and 2006. During this time, DPR routinely classified its employees' employment statuses as temporary, seasonal, or term appointments as opposed to permanent positions. Pls.' Mot. Partial Sum m. J., ECF No. 121–3, Ex. 5, at 106–12 [Marshall Dep.]. Generally, seasonal employees were hired for the summer months; temporary employees were hired for set periods outside specific seasons; and term employees were hired for thirteen-month periods. Id. Only term employees were union members of the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2741 for the Department of Parks and Recreations (“AFGE Local 2741”). Id. An employee's manager could request the renewal of non-seasonal employment, which would be granted automatically provided that the director or associate director did not reject the request. Id.; Pls.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 121–8, Ex 6, at 52–53 [“Khabo Dep.”]. DPR's high-level management personnel transitioned several times during this period; consequently this case involves a shifting cast of individuals responsible for DPR's administration.1

Project Arise—later known as Project Empowerment—was a D.C. Department of Employment Services' welfare-to-work program responsible for the initial hire of many of DPR's employees. Pls.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 121–3, Ex 1, at 34–35 [“Burns' Dep.”]. Program participants worked for DPR as a condition of their continued receipt of governmental assistance, and after a successful probationary period were hired directly by DPR. A primary goal of the program was to promote economic self-sufficiency by transitioning economically disadvantaged D.C. residents from subsidized incomes to independent employment.

1. Darnell Thompson

Darnell Thompson was the Chief of DPR's Maintenance Division.2 In this capacity, he supervised the general administration of the Division. He was solely responsible for requesting the renewal of subordinate, term and temporary Maintenance Division employees, and possessed the authority to fire and hire employees provided that he afforded them “due process.” Marshall Dep., [121–3] at 106–12; Khabo Dep., [121–18] at 52–53. His principal office was at DPR's Half Street location, but he occasionally traveled among recreation centers under his supervision.

a. Allegations of Sexual Harassment

i. Annette Burns

Originally retained through Project Arise, DPR hired Burns directly in 2001 to work as a clerical assistant in the Maintenance Department at its Half Street location. Burns' Dep., [121–3], at 43–45. She was appointed as a thirteen-month term employee under the day-to-day direction of clerical assistant, Joyce Roberts. Chief Thompson directly supervised both. Id.; Pls.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 121–10, Ex. 8, at 12–13 [“Roberts' Dep.”]. While Thompson denies ever acting inappropriately toward Burns or having any sexual contact with her, Burns alleges a series of progressively inappropriate behavior by Thompson, culminating in physical assault. Pls.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 121–16, Ex. 14 [Thompson Lerner Transcript”]; Burns' Dep., [121–3], at 86–90. In late 2001, Thompson's behavior, which Burns had previously perceived as father-like affection, began to turn too intimate. Burns' Dep., [121–3], at 86–90. She alleges that his physical contact, including hugs and shoulder rubs, progressively became more frequent, causing her great discomfort. Id. Burns claims to have repeatedly informed him that the behavior was unwelcome. Id. She also claims that she reported an incident where Thompson kissed her on the cheek to DPR supervisor James Boone, and she testified that Boone apologized and said that “it had been an ongoing thing with Mr. Thompson.... [a]nd he [Boone] would talk to him [Thompson].” Id. at 92:17–20.

After a disciplinary meeting in Thompson's office in April 2002, when she was eight months pregnant, Burns alleges Thompson grabbed her breast and tried to put his tongue in her mouth. Id. at 96:10–12. Burns attempted to fight him off, but in the course of the struggle, he used his body weight to lean on top of her and pushed down on her pregnant stomach for several minutes. Id. at 96:15–18. On May 1, 2002, Burns informed a doctor at the Washington Hospital Center that her supervisor forced himself upon her the previous day. Pls.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 121–18, Ex. 12 [“Burns Medical Records”]. She then contacted James Boone, who suggested she contact the “Union.” Burns' Dep., [121–3], at 100, 103. Upon inquiring at DPR headquarters, Burns recalls narrating her version of Thompson's attack to receptionist, Margie Clark, and asking how to register a complaint of sexual harassment against her supervisor. Id. Shortly thereafter, Burns claims that Deputy Director Khabo contacted her and told her he would file a complaint on her behalf, which Khabo neither confirms nor denies. Id. at 105; see Khabo Dep. [121–18].

For several of the following months, Burns was out on paid administrative leave per DPR's request. Burns' Dep., [121–3], at 105–06. She says she spoke with Director Albert to make arrangements for leave and he “ensured [her] that an investigation was going to take place.” Id. at 106:4–5, 120:7–10. Returning to DPR in the summer of 2002, she worked at the Randell and Watkins Recreation Center. Id. at 110:10–11. She had no further contact with Thompson; she suspected, however, that she remained under his supervision because she was still an employee within the Maintenance Department, of which Thompson was still the Director.3 Id. at 118:1–17. Thompson admitted that Director Albert told him about Burns' allegations of sexual harassment. Thompson Lerner Transcript, [121–16] at 35:14–19. DPR Chief of Staff Neil Rodgers and DPR EEOC Counselor Terrance Reddick spoke with Burns regarding her allegations.4 Burns reported the harassment to Sylvia Gwathmey, the Union Steward of the AFGE Local 2741. Pls.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 121–11, Ex. 9, at 15 [“Gwathmey Dep.”]. Additionally, Burns relayed her allegations to Project Arise employee Leslie Greene. Pls.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 121–18, Ex. 16 [“Greene Dep.”]. Green testified that she told Burns to take her complaint to a different office because she was no longer a Project Arise employee. Id. DPR allegedly informed Burns that it found no merit to her complaint, however, she was neither aware of any investigation into her complaint, nor was she contacted again by anyone from DPR regarding her allegations. Burns' Dep., [121–3], at 120–21. Burns concluded that DPR did not take her complaint seriously. Id. at 121:20–21.

Burns' final term that was set on December 3, 2003, expired on January 19, 2004—over a year and half after the incident in Thompson's office. Pls.' Opp'n DMSJ, ECF No. 133–1, Ex. 31 [“Burns Personnel Documents”]. Despite DPR's unsupported assertions to the contrary, Burns claims that she never received any sexual harassment training, was never informed of DPR's sexual harassment policies, and was not told what to do if she was sexually harassed. Pls.' Opp'n ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Davis v. Dist. of Columbia
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 31, 2017
    ...... plaintiff that no purpose would be served by requiring them to file independent charges." Byrd v. District of Columbia , 807 F.Supp.2d 37, 63 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Brooks , 606 F.3d at 807 ......
  • Pappas v. Dist. of Columbia
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • January 12, 2021
    ...the original plaintiff that no purpose would be served by requiring them to file independent charges." Byrd v. District of Columbia , 807 F. Supp. 2d 37, 63 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Brooks , 606 F.3d at 807 ); see also 513 F.Supp.3d 79 Foster v. Gueory , 655 F.2d 1319, 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (......
  • Slate v. Pub. Defender Serv. for the Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 13–00798(BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 2, 2014
    ...justification for its actions.” Vickers, 493 F.3d at 195 (quoting Aka, 156 F.3d at 1289); Byrd v. District of Columbia, 807 F.Supp.2d 37, 71 (D.D.C.2011) (recognizing that “defendants that are able to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for their actions can sufficiently......
  • Dudley v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 20, 2013
    ...protected activity, if the employer was completely unaware of plaintiff's protected activity. See Byrd v. District of Columbia, 807 F.Supp.2d 37, 69 (D.D.C.2011) (discussing whether employer was aware of protected activities); cf. Howard Univ. v. Green, 652 A.2d 41, 46 (D.C.1994) (in discus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT