Carter v. Blinken
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-1202 (DLF) |
| Parties | PAULA CARTER, Plaintiff, v. ANTONY J. BLINKEN, [1]Secretary of State, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Paula Carter brings this action against Antony Blinken, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Carter alleges that her supervisors in the Department failed to accommodate her disability; discriminated against her based on her race, age, disability, and color; retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and created a hostile work environment. Before the Court is the Secretary's Motion for Summary Judgement, Dkt. 23. For the following reasons, this Court will grant that motion.
Carter is a black African American female who is over forty years old. See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 1 (Carter EEO Aff.) at 3, Dkt. 23-3. She has been diagnosed with both congestive heart failure and heart and lung disease. See Id. at 3-4. When she filed this action she had been working in the Special Issuance Agency for at least twenty-four years and had worked as a Customer Service Manager for approximately twelve years. See Def.'s Mot. Ex. 6 (Formal Compl. of Discrim.) at 4, Dkt. 23-8. She alleges that her duties included “traveling all over the world to teach the military and federal passport agents the procedures for accepting the passport applications and other related topics.” Am. Compl. ¶ 31, Dkt. 17.
Carter has had multiple supervisors at the Agency. They included Dan Alessandrini, Michael Ma, and Eugene Arnold, who were Assistant Directors of the Agency, see Def.'s Mot. Ex. 11 (Alessandrini Decl.) ¶¶ 2-3, Dkt. 23-13; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 3 (Ma EEO Aff.) at 1-2, Dkt. 23-5; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 10 (Arnold EEO Aff.) at 1-2, Dkt. 23-12, and Christine Harold, who was hired as the Agency's Director in September 2014, see Def.'s Mot. Ex. 7 (Harold EEO Aff.) at 1-2, Dkt. 23-9. Both Ma and Harold were aware of Carter's medical condition. See Ma EEO Aff. at 3; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 15 (Harold Dep.) at 12:6-14:16, Dkt. 23-17. In addition, the Secretary admits that Alessandrini, Arnold, and Harold were aware that Carter was a witness in another employee's EEO action. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 96-98; Answer ¶¶ 96-98, Dkt. 18.
Carter took leave from the Agency in 2013 after having lung surgery. See Ma EEO Aff. at 2; Carter EEO Aff. at 9. When she returned, she asked Ma to install blinds in her office because her medical condition requires the use of an oxygen tank and “[h]aving the blinds [would] allow [her] to work freely and comfortabl[y] while on oxygen without being embarrassed or distracted.” Carter EEO Aff. at 9. Although Ma declined to order the blinds himself, see id., he directed her to the Agency's “office of reasonable accommodations, ” Def.'s Mot. Ex. 4 (Carter Dep.) at 29:4-19, Dkt. 23-6. Carter went to that office “but never completed all of the paperwork.” Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 6 (quoting Def.'s Mot. Ex. 2 (Pl.'s Responses to Def.'s Interrogatories) at 3, Dkt. 23-4). She later described the Agency's process for requesting an accommodation as “too much confusion . . . especially when you have already been diagnosed by a medical doctor.” Carter EEO Aff. at 9.
In July 2015, Carter conducted a training in Alaska with Passport Specialist Mamie Minor. See Carter EEO Aff. at 11. Before the trip, on June 22, 2015, Harold contacted Carter about her travel documents, which indicated that she planned to spend an additional day in Alaska after the training's completion. See Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 8-9. Carter responded that she would pay the additional cost of staying for that extra day. See Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Later, following the trip, Carter requested reimbursement for the costs of staying that additional day. See Id. ¶¶ 14-15. When Harold questioned those expenses, Carter replied that “time [did not] permit [her] to come back” a day sooner because she had to “pack up materials” from the previous days' trainings. Harold EEO Aff. at 28; see also Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 16-17. She also criticized Harold for “scrutinize[ing] [her] travel” expenses and “act[ing] like Blacks don't have money to travel or go on trips.” Harold EEO Aff. at 27-28. Carter later agreed to pay the expenses related to the additional day. See Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶ 20. Minor, who also chose to spend additional days in Alaska, was similarly required to pay her own additional expenses. See Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
In December 2015, Carter told Harold that she would not conduct a training with the Coast Guard in California, as she had been previously scheduled to do. See Id. ¶ 29; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 9 (Marjorie Ames EEO Aff.) at 18, Dkt. 23-11. The trip was scheduled for January 2016, and Carter had previously believed that she would conduct the training with Minor. See Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 28-29. But on December 28, 2015, when Harold emailed Carter to obtain clarification of her travel dates, see Id. ¶ 28, Carter responded: id. ¶ 29. Harold replied that Minor was not attending the training because she had travelled to Alaska within the previous six months and the Agency wanted a “larger group of GS-11s [to be] given an opportunity.” See Ames EEO Aff. at 18. She also asked Carter to confirm whether she would conduct the training in Minor's absence. See Id. Carter did not respond to that email or a subsequent voicemail from Arnold, who was then her immediate supervisor. See Id. at 26.
On January 4, 2016, Harold informed Carter that she had scheduled another employee to conduct the training. See id.; see also Id. at 21 (). Harold also told Carter that Agency management was requesting disciplinary action “based upon [her] failure to follow management instruction [with] regards to conducting the training.” Id. at 22. The next day, Carter responded that she did not respond to Harold's prior email because she was on leave. See Id. at 43. She also criticized Harold for “wait[ing] eleven days before [she was] to travel . . . to decide to change who was going and . . . question[] [her] authorization.” Id. Nine days later, on January 14, Carter emailed Harold again to say that she “was not able to conduct the scheduled training because of the confusion [she] always encounter[s] when [she is] to instruct a training class that involves travel.” Id. at 21. She added that she did not understand why another Customer Service Manager could not have taken her place on the trip.[2] See Id. Carter did not mention her health in any of the above emails. See Id. at 18, 21, 43.
On January 29, Arnold sent an email to a human resources specialist that described a recent conversation with Carter. See Id. at 13, 20. “At no point in the conversation, ” wrote Arnold, “did [Carter] assert a reason [for her recent actions] other than she was just unwilling to do the training.” Id. at 20. He added that, in his understanding, Carter had refused to conduct the trainings solely because Minor could not accompany her. See id.
On March 15, 2016, the Department of State gave Carter a proposed letter of suspension for failing to conduct the January 2016 trainings. See Id. at 11-14. In her response, Carter alleged that the suspension was in retaliation for “the current EEO case [she had] pending” with Harold and Arnold, as well as for Minor's separate union grievance against them. Id. at 34. Carter also stated that she did not conduct the trainings because the “last minute changes and unpredictability” affected her health. Id. at 35; see also Id. (). On June 15, 2016, Marjorie Ames, the Executive Director of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, approved Carter's three-day suspension. See Id. at 64-68. Ames declined to credit Carter's reliance on her medical condition because Carter “provided insufficient evidence” that she refused travel “due to [that] condition, ” and also because Carter did not “provide[] such information to [her] chain of command at the time as a reason for [her] inability to attend the training.” Id. at 67.
In her performance review for 2015, Carter received a rating of “Exceeds Expectations, ” as opposed to the highest rating, “Outstanding.” Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 21-22. Ma told Carter that she did not receive a higher rating because she “had issues with program development and outreach, management and program team participation, achieving organizational results, and participation and teamwork.” Id. ¶ 27. Carter later indicated she could not remember any factual errors in her evaluation. See Id. ¶ 25.
Carter filed a formal EEO complaint with the Department in April 2016. See Formal Compl. of Discrim. Her complaint alleged that her supervisors denied her a reasonable accommodation when they declined to install blinds in her office. See Compl. Ex. 2, Encl. 1 (Final Agency Decision), at 1, 4, Dkt. 1-2 ( the complaint). It also alleges that they discriminated against her when they required her to reimburse the costs of her additional day in Alaska, gave her a three-day suspension, and evaluated her as “Exceed[ing] Expectations.” Id. at 1. Finally, it alleges that her supervisors subjected her to a hostile work environment “characterized by, but not limited to inappropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial