Clemmons v. Acad. for Educ. Dev.

Citation70 F.Supp.3d 282
Decision Date30 September 2014
Docket NumberCivil Action No.: 10–0911 RC
PartiesLydia Clemmons, Plaintiff, v. Academy for Educational Development, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

70 F.Supp.3d 282

Lydia Clemmons, Plaintiff
v.
Academy for Educational Development, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 10–0911 RC

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 30, 2014


70 F.Supp.3d 287

David M. Wachtel, Peter M. Whelan, Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Kara M. Maciel, Jordan B. Schwartz, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Deborah J. Israel, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Washington, DC, Jesse A. Schaefer, Johnny M. Loper, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

Re Document Nos.: 53, 56

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Granting Aed's Motion For Summary Judgment; And Denying The Fhi 360 Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment As Moot

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Dr. Lydia Clemmons, worked for defendant, the Academy for Educational Development (“AED”), in carrying out an HIV prevention project before she resigned in March 2009. She since has filed the instant lawsuit against AED alleging constructive discharge, retaliation, and hostile work environment on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C.Code § 1–2501 et seq. , as well as a claim for defamation under District of Columbia common law. Now before the Court is AED's motion for summary judgment as to each of these claims.1 Upon consideration of the parties' motions, the memoranda in support thereof and opposition thereto, and the evidentiary record submitted by both parties to supplement their filings, the Court will grant AED's motion for summary judgment.

70 F.Supp.3d 288

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. AED's Structure and Operations

During the relevant events, AED was a Delaware non-profit company based in Washington, D.C. that operated domestic and international human and social development programs. See Stmt of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 1, Dec. 13, 2013, ECF No. 56 (“SOF”). In particular, AED oversaw two projects in Ghana that addressed HIV prevention for at-risk populations: the Strengthening HIV and AIDS Response Partnership Project (“SHARP”), and the Ghana Sustainable Change Project (“GSCP”). See SOF ¶ 2. The United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) was the principal funder and client for both SHARP and GSCP. See 2d Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 8, 15, ECF No. 28. The Global Health Population and Nutrition Center (“GHPN”) managed and directed GSCP, and AED, through its Center on AIDS & Community Health (“COACH”), directed and managed SHARP. See id. ¶¶ 15–16. Both COACH and GHPN operated out of AED's headquarters in the District of Columbia. See id.

Beth Anne Moskov, USAID's Director for Health, Population and Nutrition, managed the U.S. Government's health-related funded activities in Ghana, including SHARP and GSCP, starting in August 2005.See SOF ¶ 9; Moskov Dep. 7:20–8:4, Aug. 19, 2013, ECF No. 68–19. Chief Technical Officers (“CTOs”) reported on SHARP's and GSCP's daily activities and progress to Ms. Moskov; specifically, Peter Wondergem was the CTO for SHARP, and Susan Wright was the CTO for GSCP. See Moskov Dep. 18:14–19:3. Further, each Ghana project was led by a chief of party (“COP”), and in May 2006, Dr. Clemmons, an African–American woman, was hired to serve as the COP for SHARP. See SOF ¶ 4. On May 1, 2007, Jacqui Larsen started as the Deputy COP for GSCP, until she received a promotion to COP in October 2007. See id. ¶ 6. Ms. Larsen's direct supervisor was Nancy Nachbar, the Senior Project Director for GHPN, see id . ¶ 7, and Dawn McCown became GSCP's Deputy COP in January 2009. See id . ¶ 8.

B. Dr. Clemmons's Hiring and Salary Demands

Before agreeing to work for AED, Dr. Clemmons requested a salary of over $122,00, which was 15% more than her prior salary of $106,000, as well as a $40,430 increase over SHARP's previous COP's annual salary. See id . ¶¶ 12, 14. Under a cooperative agreement between USAID and AED, USAID was responsible for approving and paying Dr. Clemmons's salary, and USAID offered a maximum salary of $114,480 per year to Dr. Clemmons. See id. ¶ 14. AED, however, agreed to pay the difference from of its pool of unrestricted funds in order to complete Dr. Clemmons's hiring. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. at Ex. O–131–32; Beadle De Palomo Dep. 42:2–11, Nov. 6, 2013, ECF No. 68–12.

After joining AED, Dr. Clemmons received three annual merit-based salary increases in accordance with AED's “Annual Salary Review Guidelines,” which were issued yearly by AED's president and CEO. The AED guidelines established a range of merit-based salary percentage increases that corresponded with an employee's base salary and annual performance rating. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. at Ex. O–88; O–139. In each of the three years, Dr. Clemmons received a performance rating of “4” on a scale of “1 to 4,” which signified an “Excellent” rating. See id. at Exs. O–90, O–140, O–213.

In two of the three years, however, Dr. Clemmons received the minimum allowable

70 F.Supp.3d 289

percentage salary increase under AED's guidelines. See id. First, in 2006 she was entitled under the guidelines to a salary increase between 5.1% and 6.5%, and she received a 5.1% increase. See id. at Ex. O–139–40. Likewise, in 2008 Dr. Clemmons was entitled to a salary increase between 4.5% and 6.0%, and she received the minimum salary increase of 4.5%. See id. at Ex. O–88. During the interim year of 2007, however, she was entitled to a salary increase between 4.1% and 5.5%, and she received a 5.0% increase. See id. at Ex. O–213. Two other high-performing COPs also received the minimum allowable salary increases in 2008. First, Stanley Terrell, a Caucasian COP for a project in the Dominican Republic, was eligible to receive a merit-based increase between 2.5% and 4.0%, and he received an increase of 2.5%. See id. at Ex. O–88; O–211. Second, Licida Bautista, a Latina COP for a project in Honduras, received a rating of “Excellent” and was eligible for a salary increase between 5.5% and 7.0%, and she received the minimum salary increase of 5.5%. See id. at Ex. O–88; O–212.

C. The Relationship between SHARP and GSCP

Before and after Dr. Clemmons's arrival, SHARP and GSCP had a strained and challenging relationship. See McClintock Dep. 152:20–153:9, April 30, 2013, ECF No. 68–17; Nachbar Dep. 170:17–172:3, May 24, 2013, ECF No. 68–20; Beadle De Palomo Dep. 214:4–216:15. This was at least in part because the projects competed against each other for USAID's attention and resources, and the projects suffered from inadequate communication and strategic misalignment, which USAID recognized. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. O–180; Beadle De Palomo Dep. 214:4–216:15.

Following Ms. Larsen's promotion to COP in October 2007, the relationship between SHARP and GSCP, and particularly between Dr. Clemmons and Ms. Larsen, quickly worsened. As a result, USAID directed AED to adopt a Joint Implementation Plan (“JIP”) to facilitate collaboration between the projects and to implement more efficient communication strategies for HIV prevention in Ghana. See Clemmons Dep. 170:11–171:10, Aug. 2, 2013, ECF No. 13; Moskov Dep. 66:17–67:15. The JIP, however, increased GSCP's involvement in the HIV work that SHARP had been performing independently, which further strained the relationship between the projects. See Moskov Dep. 67:16–68:17. In particular, Dr. Clemmons has identified three examples to showcase the strained relationship between the projects during this time period.

First, in September 2007 Dr. Clemmons participated in a JIP meeting led by her immediate supervisor, Michael Kaplan. During a break in the meeting, Dr. Clemmons expressed concerns to Mr. Kaplan and Ms. Larsen about how the meeting was being conducted, as well as what she perceived to be technical gaps in GSCP's work product. See Clemmons Dep. 183:3–189:5. When Dr. Clemmons tried to follow up about implementing technical changes, Ms. Larsen refused to modify the activities identified during the JIP design meeting. See id.

Second, after that meeting, Dr. Clemmons and Ms. Larsen held additional meetings about implementing the JIP; these meetings, however, were often contentious, which only increased the hostility between the projects. Dr. Clemmons testified that during these meetings, Ms. Larsen was hostile, impatient, and verbally abusive. See id. at 108:17–111:1. In addition, Ms. Larsen repeatedly interrupted Dr. Clemmons, spoke over her, and dismissed or ignored all of Dr. Clemmons's

70 F.Supp.3d 290

comments and suggestions. See id . at 119:17–120:13.

Third, during a February 2008 meeting, Dr. Nachbar warned Dr. Clemmons to avoid discussing GSCP with anyone from USAID unless someone from GSCP was present. Dr. Clemmons testified that GSCP staff were not given the same instruction regarding SHARP. See id. at 238:2–239:4.

AED, on the other hand, provides evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Ayuda, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 30, 2014
    ... ... U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 484 F.Supp.2d 68, 73 (D.D.C.2007) ). Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules ... Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 292 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.2003). To make this determination, a court ... ...
  • Richardson v. Petasis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 7, 2015
    ...Defendants' arguments to the contrary. In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants largely rely on Clemmons v. Academy for Educational Development , 70 F.Supp.3d 282 (D.D.C.2014), in which the court held that the plaintiff's claims that she received rude e-mails and that her co-workers......
  • Clemmons v. Acad. for Educ. Dev.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 4, 2015
    ...create an abusive working environment" actionable under Title VII and the DCHRA. Clemmons v. Acad. for Educ. Dev., No. 10–cv–0911, 70 F.Supp.3d 282, 298–301, 2014 WL 4851739, at *10–12 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2014) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L......
  • Hu v. K4 Sols.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 12, 2020
    ...CBP, (Am. Compl. ¶ 122(a)-(b)), which express a subjective opinion, do not fall within this exception. See Clemmons v. Acad. for Educ. Dev., 70 F. Supp. 3d 282, 308-09 (D.D.C. 2014). In Clemmons, the court held that statements characterizing the plaintiff as "difficult" to work with and cau......
  • 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