Glapion v. Castro, Civil Action No. 14-cv-01699-MEH
| Decision Date | 16 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14-cv-01699-MEH |
| Parties | MELEAHA R. GLAPION, Plaintiff, v. JULIAN CASTRO, Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Before the Court are two motions: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [filed March 31, 2015; docket #106], and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") Claim [filed April 21, 2015; docket #108] (the "Motions"). The Motions are fully briefed, and the Court finds that oral argument will not assist in its adjudication of the Motions. Based on the record herein and for the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motions.1
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 18, 2014. Complaint, docket #1. Plaintiff shortly thereafter moved for appointment of pro bono counsel, which U.S. Magistrate JudgeBoyd Boland, the presiding judge on this case before his retirement and the reassignment to this Court, denied as premature. See dockets ##5, 6, 9. After reassignment, both parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See docket #27.
Plaintiff's claims arise from her employment as a Management Analyst for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and her removal from that position on March 30, 2012. She alleges her supervisors disciplined her on the basis of her race, color, and sex, and in retaliation for making whistleblowing disclosures. See docket #40. Before filing the present action, Plaintiff challenged her removal and discipline through the Merit System Protection Board ("MSPB") and Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") procedures. The operative pleading - Plaintiff's Third Amended Title VII Complaint - asserts eight claims for relief; however this Court on February 4, 2015, dismissed the whistleblowing, harmful procedural error, and constitutional claims. See docket #94. Thus, Plaintiff's remaining claims under consideration in these Motions are: (1) Title VII discrimination based on race, sex, and color; (2) Title VII hostile work environment; (3) Title VII retaliation; (4) Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") violation; and (5) Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") violation.
Plaintiff in February 2015, while the Motion to Dismiss was pending, again sought appointment of pro bono counsel from the Civil Pro Bono Panel, which the Court granted. See dockets ##93, 95. The Pro Bono Panel appointed counsel on April 16, 2015 [see docket #107], but the attorney declined the appointment on May 14, 2015 [see docket #122]. Plaintiff then filed a response to the Motions and an accompanying declaration [see dockets ##111, 111-1], which the Court struck as they included "more than 500 pages of meandering, repetitive argument and, often, unnecessary prose," ordering Plaintiff to revise and refile her brief, limiting its length, and providingher guidance on how to focus her arguments to the Motions at hand [see docket #121]. Plaintiff refiled her response on June 12, 2015 [see docket #126], which the Court again struck as it failed "to address directly any of Defendant's more than 300 statements of undisputed facts" and spent "80 pages essentially reiterating her Complaint, leaving the Court with practically no ability to determine whether there are remaining disputed material facts" [see docket #129]. The Court gave explicit instructions to Plaintiff to respond, cite, organize, and be brief, warning Plaintiff that any deviation from the Court's order would "result in the Court adopting Defendant's version of the facts as true in the consideration of the pending Motions." Docket #129. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to provide paper copies of her forthcoming response and accompanying exhibits. Id.
Plaintiff then on August 7, 2015, moved for administrative closure of the case based on personal and professional challenges. See docket #134. The Court held a hearing on August 12, 2015, denying that motion but allowing Plaintiff additional time to file her modified response. See docket #136. Plaintiff then timely filed her Response (combined for both Motions) on September 6, 2015. See docket #137 (with exhibits at dockets ##138-45, spanning multiple docket entries because of the many exhibits and the manner in which Plaintiff filed them). Defendant timely filed his Reply on September 25, 2015. Plaintiff requested and the Court allowed a Surreply, which Plaintiff filed on October 12, 2015. See dockets ##147-49.
The Court makes the following findings of fact viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, who is the non-moving party in this matter.2
1. Plaintiff's race is Black American, her color is black, and her sex is female. Docket #38 at 6.
2. Plaintiff's only work for the federal government before HUD was as an intern at the Social Security Administration in 1999. Ex. 1 (Plaintiff's Dist. Ct. Depo.) at 6:10-19.
3. Plaintiff was hired by HUD as a Federal Career Intern ("FCI") effective April 28, 2008. Docket #38 at 6.
4. As an FCI, Plaintiff was assigned two years of training and developmental assignments. Docket #38 at 6.
5. When Plaintiff started as an FCI, Plaintiff's "targeted office" was HUD's Region VIII Field Policy and Management ("FPM") office, meaning that at the completion of the two-year FCI program, she would work in the Region VIII FPM Office. Ex. 2 (Griswold Decl.) ¶ 1.
6. As an FCI, Plaintiff served "rotations" through various HUD offices, meaning that she worked in a range of program offices for specific periods in order to acquire cross-program knowledge and develop professional skills. Ex. 2 ¶ 1.
7. FPM is the direct face of HUD in the communities it serves. It interacts locally with elected officials to ensure that the policies for which HUD is responsible are implemented. It is ultimately responsible for all HUD programs in the region. Ex. 3 (MSPB Hearing Day 1) 223:19-224:1.
8. The basic duties of HUD's FPM office are to:
Ex. 3 at 10:10-11:7; 12:10-13:22.
9. FPM is one of HUD's six basic program offices, which also include: Office of Public Housing; Office of Multifamily Housing; Office of Single-Family Housing; Office of Native American Programs, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; and Office of Community Planning and Development. Ex. 3 at 11:1-7.
10. Plaintiff did not serve any rotations in Multifamily Housing while she was an FCI. Ex. 3 at 116:23-117:4.
11. Plaintiff was scheduled for a rotation in Multifamily Housing while an FCI, but that was deferred and never completed because Plaintiff was on a different rotation. Ex. 4 (MSPB HearingDay 2) at 10:5-8.
12. Plaintiff was converted from an FCI to permanent competitive status on May 9, 2010. Docket #38 at 6.
13. Plaintiff's conversion on May 9, 2010, was to the position of Management Analyst, GS-12, in FPM. Ex. 6 (Plaintiff SF effective May 9, 2010).
14. Plaintiff alleges that she should have been converted into a GS-13 position as of the date of her conversion. Ex. 1 at 104:10-21.
15. FPM Management Analysts were given assignments to further FPM's work. Ex. 3 at 13:24-14:2.
16. The people Plaintiff alleges discriminated against her are as follows, based on race (Ex. At 234:23-235:4), color (Ex. 1 at 249:9-15), sex (Ex. 1 at 253:1-8), and retaliation (Ex. 1 at 254:20-255:1):
17. The Region VIII FPM is organized as follows: the Regional Administrator (who is an Obama administration appointee) supervises the Deputy Regional Administrator; the Deputy RegionalAdministrator supervises everyone else in the FPM office; and the Deputy Regional Administrator also supervises Field Office Directors. Ex. 10 (Garcia Decl.) ¶ 1.
18. HUD's Region VIII includes Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Ex. 10 ¶ 2.
19. On October 28, 2010, Gomez sent Plaintiff an email "counseling" her regarding an email she sent to Obama-appointee Garcia on October 27, 2010. Ex. 11 (Oct. 28, 2010 email) (authenticated at Ex. 1 at 174:25-175:11).
20. Plaintiff's October 27, 2010 email to Garcia stated that she wanted to "provide [Garcia] with just enough information on the subject of homelessness so that [...
To continue reading
Request your trial