Dudley v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
Decision Date | 20 February 2013 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 11–1447 (RCL). |
Citation | 924 F.Supp.2d 141 |
Parties | William I. DUDLEY, Jr., Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jerry Robert Goldstein, Bulman, Dunie, Burke & Feld, Chartered, Bethesda, MD, for Plaintiff.
Kathleen Ann Carey, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiff William Dudley, Jr. has worked as a Sign and Shelter Mechanic for defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) for over two decades. Dudley brings this Title VII discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation suit, alleging that his supervisors routinely gave White employees special treatment and singled out Black employees for harsh criticism and unfair punishment. In particular, Dudley claims that while White employees frequently flouted WMATA's attendance policy without repercussion, supervisors strictly enforced the policy against African Americans. Dudley avers that, after complaining about racial discrimination, he became the target of disrespect, condescension, baseless write-ups and suspensions, and retaliatory work assignments.
Before the Court is defendant WMATA's Motion for Summary Judgment, July 31, 2012, ECF No. 14. Upon consideration of the defendant's motion, the plaintiff's Opposition, Sept. 10, 2012, ECF No. 19, the defendant's Reply thereto, Oct. 22, 2012, ECF No. 33, and the record herein, the Court will grant defendant's motion and dismiss the action with prejudice.
William Dudley, Jr. has worked for WMATA since November 1989, and has held the position of Sign and Shelter Mechanic AA since 1999. Affidavit of William I. Dudley, Jr. (“Dudley Aff.”) ¶ 1, Sept. 6, 2012, ECF No. 19–4; Def.'s Statement of Material Facts not in Dispute (“Def.'s SMF”) ¶ 1, July 31, 2012, ECF No. 14; Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts in Dispute (“Pl.'s SMF”) 10, Sept. 10, 2012, ECF No. 19–1 (not disputing Def.'s SMF ¶ 1). Dudley is responsible for repairing and replacing bus stop signs and shelters. Dudley Aff. ¶ 1.
Dudley is African American. From 2005 to approximately February 2008, James Lacey, a Caucasian, held the title of Bus Maintenance Supervisor and supervised Dudley. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 1–3; Pl.'s SMF 10 (not disputing Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 1–3). In February 2008, WMATA transferred responsibility for the Sign and Shelter Shop—where Dudley worked—from Bus Maintenance to Bus Planning. Since then, Scottie Borders, an African American Senior Program Manager for Bus Planning, has supervised Dudley. Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 3–4; Pl.'s SMF 10 (not disputing Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 3–4).
Dudley's Complaint alleges a series of instances of alleged discriminatory and retaliatory events that took place between June 2007 and May 2011. Compl. ¶¶ 6–18, Aug. 8, 2011, ECF No. 1. The Complaint asserts race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Compl. ¶¶ 21–26.
The WMATA Bus Services Employee's Handbook establishes a policy by which WMATA may discipline employees for repeatedly reporting to work late. Ex. 5 to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (excerpts of Bus Services Employee's Handbook). Employees who arrive late or out of uniform, or who fail to report at all, are assessed “points” in their record for each incident. Id. For late reports under twenty minutes, employees receive one point. Employees who fail to report receive four points. WMATA issues a one-day suspension for employees who accumulate eight points within one 365–day period. Id. Management does not assess any points for two late arrivals under twenty minutes; therefore, an employee who WMATA suspends under the policy has actually arrived late ten times in one year.
Between July 31, 2006, and June 16, 2007, Dudley arrived late to work ten times. Ex. 6 to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (Record of Disciplinary Action for Unscheduled Absences). Lacey did not assess any points for two of Dudley's late reports; on June 16, 2007, Dudley accumulated eight points. Id. Pursuant to WMATA policy, Lacey suspended Dudley for one day, which Dudley served on June 18, 2007. Ex. 6 to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.
After meeting with the WMATA Office of Civil Rights, Ex. 9 to Pl.'s Opp'n, Dudley completed an EEOC Intake Questionnaire on November 6, 2007, Ex. 10 to Pl.'s Opp'n. In the Questionnaire, Dudley alleged that Lacey discriminatorily enforced the attendance policy and that his one-day suspension was the result of racial discrimination. Ex. 10 to Pl.'s Opp'n. Dudley also stated, “I also feel that the comments and actions by (Lacey) management has created an intimidating, offensive, stressfull [ sic ], and hostile working environment for me.” Id.
On January 7, 2008, Dudley signed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination, stating that he was “unjustly issued a disciplinary write up for violating [WMATA]'s policies” on June 16, 2007, and later on August 31, 2007, “was suspended from employment for violating [WMATA]'s policies.” Ex. 11 to Pl.'s Opp'n. Dudley stated, “I believe that I was discriminated against based upon my race, Black, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.” Id. The charge stated the earliest date of the discrimination was on “06–16–2007,” and the latest on “08–31–2007.” Id. Dudley did not check the form's “Continuing Action” box. Id. The EEOC sent Dudley a Right to Sue Notice on May 17, 2011. Dudley Aff. ¶ 22.
Dudley alleges that after he filed his EEOC Charge, Lacey and other management officials began to treat him more harshly. Dudley states that “Lacey regularly spoke to me in a derogatory and condescending manner at morning ‘toolbox’ meetings where he gave out assignments to the employees, he gave me what I believed were retaliatory job assignments, singled me out for criticism, used intimidating language towards me, constantly harassed me, and wrote false statements about my work.” Dudley Aff. ¶ 8.
In particular, Dudley alleges that in “July 2008 Lacey gave me a verbal warning for parking my personal vehicle in the Bus II parking lot behind the shop and transferring my tools between my personal vehicle and my work truck, even though all the Sign and Shelter Mechanics who are assigned a company vehicle do the same thing on a daily basis and Lacey did not reprimand other employees.” Id. ¶ 9.
On July 19, 2008, Dudley claims that he was the victim of unwarranted and unprovokedthreats from Peter White, a Caribbean–Black co-worker. Dudley Aff. ¶ 10. When Lacey initially investigated the incident, he described it as “unprofessional behavior between co-workers,” which Dudley took to suggest that he was “at fault as well as White.” Id.; see also Ex. 13 to Pl.'s Opp'n. After supervisors completed the investigation, Lacey gave White a written reprimand and referred him to attend a Workplace Violence Awareness Class. Ex. 12 to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Lacey did not discipline Dudley for his incident. Id. White later filed a grievance, and WMATA agreed to remove “all paper work and material related to th[e] grievance ... from all the employee personnel files.” Ex. 13 to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.
On June 24, 2009, Lacey completed an investigation of a verbal disagreement between Dudley and his co-worker, Kehinde Ogundiran. Dudley asserts that he made an innocuous comment about meeting Ogundiran's sister-in-law, to which Ogundiran responded angrily. Ex. 15 to Pl.'s Opp'n. Dudley characterizes Lacey's report as a write up “for unprofessional behavior among co-workers,” see Pl.'s Opp'n 5, but WMATA insists that Lacey did not discipline either employee, see Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 8. Dudley filed a grievance requesting that WMATA remove the investigation report from his personnel file, worried about it being used for future discipline. Ex. 24 to Pl.'s Opp'n. Lacey denied this grievance, Ex. 16 to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., and Dudley did not request further review.
On July 24, 2009, Lacey assigned Dudley and a co-worker to work on a sign that was down, but Dudley claims that when the men arrived they could not do the work because they did not have the proper tools with them. Dudley Aff. ¶ 12. Dudley says that he secured the sign and moved on to higher priority assignments. Dudley alleges that on July 29, 2009, his co-worker was absent, and he went to Lacey's office to ask for help; after waiting three hours for Lacey to speak with him, he left to complete other jobs. The next day, Dudley again asked for help, and Lacey assigned Damien Wood to assist him. When the men arrived at the location of the down sign, Dudley claims that a maintenance man had disposed of the sign, and that he and Wood did not have that kind of sign with them in their truck. Id.
On July 31, 2009, Lacey asked Dudley to explain why, a week later, the down sign still had not been fixed. The parties disagree on how this conversation went. Dudley asserts:
Lacey began berating me for not completing the job the previous day and refused to listen to my explanation or talk to anyone else about why the work had not been completed. Lacey told me that I was to go out with William Arrington and get the job done that day. As I started to leave and Arrington came into the office, Lacey yelled at me in Arrington's presence to “stand right there and listen to me” as if I were a child. I was angry and embarrassed and walked to the restroom to avoid a verbal confrontation. Lacey, however, continued yelling at me to “come back here” and “we're going to the Superintendent's Office.”
Dudley Aff. ¶ 12. WMATA's version of the events is different:
Mr. Dudley became...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Dist. of Columbia
...that a "party must exhaust ... administrative remedies ... for each discrete act of discrimination," Dudley v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. , 924 F.Supp.2d 141, 155–156 (quoting Lipscomb v. Winter , 577 F.Supp.2d 258, 271 (D.D.C. 2008) ). But the District misreads the relevant EEOC ......
-
Said v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...not "the Court's role to question how Amtrak ... interpret[s] Rule 24," Def.'s Reply at 7 (first citing Dudley v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 924 F.Supp.2d 141, 169 (D.D.C. 2013) ; then citing Barbour v. Browner, 181 F.3d 1342, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ), are distinguishable. Although bot......
-
Burton v. Dist. of Columbia
...the sort of severe and pervasive harassment required to support a hostile work environment claim. See Dudley v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 924 F.Supp.2d 141, 171–72 (D.D.C.2013) (“A litany of cases shows that simply having a rude, harsh, or unfair boss is not enough for a hostile......
-
Samuel v. Metro. Police Dep't
...their alleged discrete acts of retaliation [or discrimination] into a broader hostile work environment claim.’ " Dudley v. WMATA , 924 F.Supp.2d 141, 164 (D.D.C. 2013) ( Baloch v. Norton , 517 F.Supp.2d 345, 364 (D.D.C. 2007) ). Courts do so because they fear that plaintiffs will use hostil......