Clemmons v. Acad. for Educ. Dev.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 10–0911 RC
• Citation: 70 F.Supp.3d 282
• Parties: Lydia Clemmons, Plaintiff, v. Academy for Educational Development, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.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

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 DocumentNos.: 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.¹Upon 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.

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.SeeStmt 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”).SeeSOF ¶ 2.The United States Agency for International Development(“USAID”) was the principal funder and client for both SHARP and GSCP.See2d 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.Seeid.¶¶ 15–16.Both COACH and GHPN operated out of AED's headquarters in the District of Columbia.Seeid.

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.SeeSOF ¶ 9;MoskovDep. 7:20–8:4, Aug. 19, 2013, ECFNo. 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.SeeMoskovDep. 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.SeeSOF ¶ 4.On May 1, 2007, Jacqui Larsen started as the Deputy COP for GSCP, until she received a promotion to COP in October 2007.Seeid.¶ 6.Ms. Larsen's direct supervisor was Nancy Nachbar, the Senior Project Director for GHPN, seeid . ¶ 7, and Dawn McCown became GSCP's Deputy COP in January 2009.Seeid .¶ 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.Seeid .¶¶ 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.Seeid.¶ 14.AED, however, agreed to pay the difference from of its pool of unrestricted funds in order to complete Dr. Clemmons's hiring.SeeDef.'s Mot. Summ. J. atEx. O–131–32;Beadle De PalomoDep. 42:2–11, Nov. 6, 2013, ECFNo. 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.SeeDef.'s Mot. Summ. J. atEx. 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.Seeid. at Exs. O–90, O–140, O–213.

In two of the three years, however, Dr. Clemmons received the minimum allowable percentage salary increase under AED's guidelines.Seeid.First, in 2006she was entitled under the guidelines to a salary increase between 5.1% and 6.5%, and she received a 5.1% increase.Seeid. 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%.Seeid. 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.Seeid. 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%.Seeid. 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%.Seeid. 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.SeeMcClintockDep. 152:20–153:9, April 30, 2013, ECFNo. 68–17;NachbarDep. 170:17–172:3, May 24, 2013, ECFNo. 68–20;Beadle De PalomoDep. 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.SeeDef.'sMot. Summ. J., Ex. O–180;Beadle De PalomoDep. 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.SeeClemmonsDep. 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.SeeClemmonsDep. 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.Seeid.

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 comments and suggestions.Seeid . 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 that Dr. Clemmons's attitude and persistent criticism of Ms. Larsen and GSCP contributed to the deteriorating relationship between the projects.For example, AED notes that Dr. Clemmons repeatedly criticized GSCP's technical expertise, such as by saying that GSCP had “performance problems,”Def.'sMot. Summ. J., Ex. O–119; O–120, and by accusing GSCP of doing “slap-dash work” that required correcting, seeSOF ¶ 32.GSCP members also complained about Dr. Clemmons verbally attacking them when providing technical feedback.SeeClemmonsDep. 106:18–108:3.Due to the worsening relationship between the projects, Frank Beadle De Palomo, the Director of COACH, met with Dr. Clemmons and Ms. Larsen during his April 2008 site visit, but his efforts did not alleviate the tensions.SeeSOF ¶ 46.

On July 7, 2008, Cheryl Mayo took over as the Senior Project Director at COACH, making her Dr. Clemmons's direct supervisor.SeeSOF ¶ 51.In this position, Ms. Mayo supervised four international HIV programs within COACH, seeMayoDep. 54:6–20, June 18, 2013, ECFNo. 68–16, and she reported to Mr. Beadle De Palomo, who oversaw personnel,...