Grady v. McCarthy

Decision Date22 June 2018
Docket NumberCivil No. ELH-17-1141
PartiesALTRAMESIA GRADY, Plaintiff, v. RYAN D. MCCARTHY, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Altramesia Grady, who is self-represented, filed suit on April 25, 2017, against her employer, Ryan McCarthy, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Army (the "Department," the "Agency," or the "Army"). ECF 1 ("Complaint"). She asserts claims for race, color, sex, and religious discrimination (Count I), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"); retaliation (Count II), in violation of Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified, as amended, at 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq. ("Rehabilitation Act"); and hostile work environment (Count III), in violation of Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Id.

The Department has moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment (ECF 15), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 15-1) (collectively, "Motion") and numerous exhibits. ECF 15-2 through ECF 15-10. Purusant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Clerk mailed a Rule 12/56 notice to Grady, advising her of her right to respond, and that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the case. ECF 18. Grady did not respond.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. Although Grady did not respond to the Motion, I shall liberally construe her Complaint, because she is self-represented. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion and enter judgment in favor of the Department.

I. Factual and Procedural Background1

Grady, an African-American Christian woman, works in the Department's "Directorate of Public Works Engineering Branch" in Fort Meade, Maryland. ECF 1 at 12-13, ¶¶ 4, 8, 10. She currently serves as a GS-12 General Engineer, and is "the highest-ranking African-American & female employee within Public Works Engineering Branch." Id. at 13, ¶ 8. Since May of 2006, Chief Engineer James Randy Williams has served as Grady's first-level supervisor. Id. at 13, ¶¶ 9, 10. Colonel Bert Rice served as Grady's second-level supervisor from June 2013 through June 2014. Id. at 13, ¶ 9; ECF 15-7 at 12. Daniel Spicer has served as Grady's second-level supervisor since Rice's departure. ECF 15-7 at 13. During plaintiff's employment with the Department, she has filed three Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaints.

A. 2008 EEO Complaint

Shortly after joining the Department, Grady was detailed to the Meade Acquisition Team for approximately eighteen months to assist in writing a contract. ECF 1 at 9; ECF 15-2 at 3-4. On February 15, 2008, Grady filed an EEO complaint, alleging race and sex discrimination on the basis that she "was not afforded an equal opportunity to receive adequate training opportunities." ECF 15-2 ("2008 EEO Complaint"), at 3.

On or around July 14, 2009, Grady and the Department entered into a settlement agreement. Among other things, the Department agreed to pay Grady's tuition for five college classes (not to exceed $4,200 in costs). ECF 15-5 at 3-9 ("Settlement Agreement"). In return, Grady agreed to withdraw the 2008 EEO Complaint and waive her right to pursue the accrued claims. Id. Accordingly, the EEO Complaint was dismissed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Committion ("EEOC"). Id. at 1. Grady subsequently returned to the Engineering Branch as a General Engineer. ECF 1 at 10; ECF 15-3.

B. 2014 EEO Complaint

On or around July 15, 2014, Grady filed another EEO complaint, alleging "an ongoing continuous pattern of harassment, workplace violence, disparate treatment/impact, and retaliation/reprisal for engagement in protected activity." ECF 15-3 ("2014 EEO Complaint"), at 4. The 2014 EEO Complaint included various incidents of alleged discrimination by Grady's supervisors, which occurred between 2009 and 2014. Id. at 7-35. The alleged conduct generally falls into the following categories: (1) harassment by coworkers; (2) supervisors' failure to respond to alleged harassment; and (3) disparate treatment.

i. Harassment by Coworkers

Grady alleged several incidents of harassment by her coworkers. These included the following: (1) In February 2009, Williams forwarded a "[r]acially based video showing indentured servants performing labor and on ship in water." ECF 15-3 at 7. (2) On January 30, 2014, Grady's coworker left a "Graphic photo of [a] blood sucking bug" on Grady's office chair. Id. at 19. (3) On March 11, 2014, during a meeting with other engineers, Williams "utilized [a] loud tone directed toward [Grady] asking how they [sic] Hell [sic] she was going to execute [the] project." Id. at 29. Grady was "humiliated and degraded" by such conduct. Id. (4) On May 28,2014, Grady received "Hate Mail on [a] Government computer" from Callie Donaldson, stating that Grady was a "race card playing bitch" and that "We ALL HATE and DISRESPECT you every day." ECF 15-3 at 34.2

Further, Grady asserted that since 2011, her coworker, Anthony Karwoski, continuously harassed her, physically and verbally. See id. at 9, 14, 21. Specifically, Grady alleged that Karwoski "intentionally made reprehensible statements which are false regarding [Grady's] work assignments/projects," and he "modified [Grady's] project without her knowledge or consent. . . . [and] [a]ssaulted [Grady] physically [and] verbally without any repercussions" by Grady's supervisors. Id. at 21. Additionally, Grady claimed that in January 2014 she "was trapped in a corner by [Karwoski] as he verbally and physically assaulted [her] (finger within inches of [Grady's] face) . . . for approx. 5 minutes . . . ." Id. at 28.

ii. Supervisors' Failure to Respond to Alleged Harassment

Grady alleged that her supervisors failed to respond to Grady's complaints of alleged harassment during the relevant time. Specifically, Grady asserted: (1) In January 2011, Grady's supervisors "failed to take prompt action" in response to a physical and verbal threat by Karwoski. Id. at 9. (2) In June 2012, after Karwoski "continued to harass" Grady, her supervisors showed favorable treatment toward Karwoski and condoned his actions. Id. at 14. (3) On May 20, 2013, Grady's supervisors failed to respond to Grady's complaints regarding unauthorized access to her work files and other computer difficulties. Id. at 25. (4) In August 2013, Grady's supervisors failed to respond to Grady's reports of fraud, waste, and abuse. Id. at26. (5) Grady's supervisors failed to respond to the alleged incident of January 2014, involving Karwoski. Id. at 28.

iii. Disparate Treatment

Grady alleged multiple instances of disparate treatment, as follows. (1) From 2009 until 2010, Grady "was treated less favorably regarding assignment of offices. . . . [and] was not assigned an office until she complained regarding the less favorable treatment." ECF 15-3 at 8, 16. (2) From 2010 until 2014, Williams "show[ed] favor toward similar[ly] situated employees with regarding to [sic] filling managerial roles during his absence." Id. at 8. (3) On March 2, 2010, Grady's supervisors asked Grady to purchase a training handbook. Id. at 24. (4) In August or September 2010, Grady "was requested on several occasions to sign off on construction contracts [and] BG&E [contracts] for projects not assigned to her." Id. at 10. (5) In June 2011, Williams showed preferential treatment to white male technicians and personnel regarding project assignments and proposals. Id. at 11-12, 22. (6) On June 25, 2012, Grady's supervisors "[i]ntentionally hindered [Grady] from moving forward with execution" of her projects. Id. at 15. (7) In August 2013, Grady was penalized on her performance review in retaliation for her reports of fraud, waste, and abuse. Id. at 26. (8) On November 6, 2013, Williams transferred a project from Grady to Karwoski without an explanation. Id. at 31-32. (9) In May or June 2014, Grady's supervisors "either transferr[ed] [Grady's] assignments or consulted with male white engineering technicians regarding recommendations and request[s] submitted by [Grady]." Id. at 22, 30. (10) In December 2013, Grady's supervisors "lowered" Grady's performance appraisal." Id. at 27. Grady characterized the evaluation as "biased," and asserted that it was in "retaliation for EEO inquiry." Id.

Grady also alleged that she received lower pay than her fellow male engineers for equal work. Id. at 13. Further, she asserted that in May 2012 she declined an offer of a lateral position, because there was no increase in pay. ECF 15-3 at 13. Grady later received "an anonymous tip [in] June 2014 [that the] lateral position offered in 2012 paid sufficiently more money than what was offered." Id.

Moreover, Grady claims that in June of 2014, she submitted ideas through Fort Meade's Employment Innovation Program, which were subsequently implemented. Id. at 18. However, Grady never received an award for her proposals, which was allegedly promised by the Employment Innovation Program. Id. Grady also asserted that during May or June of 2014 her supervisors "consulted with male white engineering technicians regarding subsequent recommendations and request[s] submitted by [Grady]." Id. at 22.

C. 2016 EEOC Hearing

The EEOC held a two-day hearing on March 23-24, 2016, before Administrative Law Judge Enechi A. Modu ("ALJ Modu"). See ECF 15-6 (Transcripts of March 23, 2016 and March 24, 2016).3 Plaintiff appeared without counsel. Id. at 2.

During the hearing, ALJ Modu addressed Grady's claims "that [1] since August 2012 the Agency has paid Complainant at a rate less than male engineers, and that [2] her supervisor refused to process her Workers' Compensation claim on or about July 2014. July slash August of 2014." Id. at 9. ALJ Modu dismissed Grady's disparate pay claim after noting that Grady proffered no evidence to rebut the Department's ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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