Green v. CGI Tech. & Solutions

• Citation: 911 F.Supp.2d 513
• Decision Date: 28 November 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:11cv1560.
• Parties: Josephine GREEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

911 F.Supp.2d 513

Josephine GREEN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:11cv1560.

United States District Court,

N.D. Ohio,

Eastern Division.

Nov. 28, 2012.

Brian D. Spitz, Frederick M. Bean, Spitz Law Firm, South Euclid, OH, for Plaintiffs.

Amy Ryder Wentz, Linda H. Harrold, Littler Mendelson, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 25 ]

BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants CGI Technologies and Solutions, and CGI Federal, Inc. (“Defendants”). ECF No. 25. Plaintiffs Josephine Green (“Green”) and Charlotte Camp (“Camp”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) responded ( ECF No. 26 ), and Defendants replied ( ECF No. 29 ). Having considered these pleadings and the applicable law, the Court grants Defendants' motion, for the reasons that follow.

I. Background

A. The Claims

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging wrongful termination based upon race discrimination in violation of O.R.C. § 4112.02; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF No. 1–5 at 5–7. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as attorney fees and costs. ECF No. 1–5 at 7–8.

B. The Parties

Defendants provide IT solutions and business process outsourcing services to a wide array of businesses and federal government agencies. ECF No. 25–1 at 8. Such services are provided to the administration of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Section 8 programs and contracts on behalf of state and local housing agencies. ECF No. 25–1 at 8. HUD helps apartment owners offer reduced rents to low-income tenants by subsidizing the rent for certain units.¹ECF No. 25–1 at 8.

Relevant to this case, HUD contracts with Assisted Housing Services Corporation (“AHSC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA”), to administer Section 8 programs and contracts in Ohio. ECF No. 25–1 at 8. AHSC sub-contracts the administration of the Ohio contracts to Defendants. ECF NO. 25–1 at 8–9.

With regard to the Ohio contract, Defendants ensure that: Section 8 property owners are in compliance with Section 8 guidelines and regulations; that property owners' contracts with HUD are accurately and timely processed and renewed; and that property owners receive their monthly rent contributions from HUD. ECF No. 25–1 at 9.

Defendants have two offices in Ohio—Cleveland and Columbus. ECF No. 25–1 at 9. Each office has a “portfolio” of site-based Section 8 properties for which its staff provides contract administration services. ECF No. 25–1 at 9. The offices are each led by an Area Manager, who is responsible for overseeing all Ohio tasks assigned to her particular office. ECF No. 25–1 at 9. The Area Manager supervises three to four Regional Managers, who are assigned management responsibility for certain portfolios within one or more regions. ECF No. 25–1 at 9. The Regional Managers supervise up to four Central Contract Specialists, who are assigned to specific property contracts. ECF No. 25–1 at 9.

Defendants hired Plaintiff Green as a Regional Manager on August 21, 2000. ECF No. 26 at 6. In September 2005, Green was promoted to Area Manager of the Cleveland office. Green's job included overseeing the processing of rental adjustments associated with contract renewals for Section 8 housing. ECF No. 26 at 6. As an Area Manager, Green reported to the Director of Operations, Tracey Rudy. ECF No. 26 at 6.

Plaintiff Camp was hired by Defendants as a Central Contract Specialist in its Cleveland office on April 21, 2003. ECF No. 26 at 6. Camp was promoted to the position of Regional Manager in October 2005, whereupon she reported directly to Green. ECF No. 26 at 6. Camp was responsible for overseeing all of the activities associated with the Section 8 housing contract renewals as well as overseeing the tasks completed by the Central Contract Specialists associated with those renewals. ECF No. 26 at 6. Rudy also supervised Camp. ECF No. 25–3 at 15.

C. The CWV Family Housing Project

In 2009, Defendants' Cleveland office handled a contract renewal for CWV FamilyHousing (“CWV”). ECF No. 26 at 7. Issues with the CWV renewal first arose because the rent adjustment worksheet, known as iREMS, contained the wrong rent schedules. ECF No. 26 at 7.² The rent schedules, allegedly established by HUD, were reviewed by the Central Contract Specialist, Avaughn Pope. ECF No. 26 at 7. Pope created a budget worksheet that calculated the rent figures for the CWV renewal. ECF No. 25–3 at 22. The budget worksheet turned out to be corrupted, resulting in incorrect figures. ECF No. 25–2 at 15.

CWV determined that these figures were inaccurate. They sent an appeal letter in August 2009 to Defendants, which was reviewed and handled by Camp. ECF No. 26 at 7. After review of the issue,³ Camp denied the appeal because it was HUD that made the decisions regarding the rent schedules and Defendants were not in a position to override HUD's decision.⁴ECF No. 26 at 7.

On September 3, 2009, CWV submitted a second level appeal to HUD. ECF No. 25–1 at 13. In its review, HUD evaluated the rent adjustment calculations and identified the mistakes. ECF No. 25–1 at 13. Thereafter, HUD sent Rudy an email asking Rudy to look into the matter. ECF Nos. 25–1 at 13–14; 25–4 at 15. Rudy investigated the issue and identified the rent schedule errors and the misuse of the corrupted budget worksheet. ECF No. 25–1 at 14. Rudy convened a conference call with Green, Camp, Pope and another employee, identifying the errors in the CWV contract renewal to date, and giving them specific instructions regarding how to fix the mistakes. ECF Nos. 25–1 at 14; 25–4 at 17; 25–2 at 40; 25–3 at 25. Rudy also gave Green and Camp express instructions to closely monitor the remainder of the contract renewal tasks to ensure a successful and quality completion. ECF Nos. 25–4 at 17; 25–2 at 40. She also directed them to keep her apprised of all activities related to this process. ECF Nos. 25–4 at 17; 25–2 at 40.

On October 5, 2009, Defendants' client CMHA emailed Rudy to express CMHA's dissatisfaction with Defendants' handling of the CWV contract renewal. ECF Nos. 25–4 at 25; 25–6 at 6–7,10. The email stated that CMHA's Executive Director wanted details in writing of Defendants' course of action to remedy the situation and assurance that these issues would not occur again. ECF Nos. 25–4 at 25; 25–6 at 6–7,10. A few days later, Rudy and Vice President Marybeth Carragher met with the CMHA Executive Director, who verbally expressed his dissatisfaction to them. ECF Nos. 25–4 at 25; 25–6 at 6–7,10. Rudy and Carragher shared with him what they were doing to try to bring the CWV contract renewal to a timely and accurate completion. ECF Nos. 25–4 at 25; 25–6 at 6–7,10.

As a result of CWV's second-level appeal, HUD approved a rent increase for the CWV contract. ( ECF Nos. 25–2 at 40–41; 25–6 at 11 ). On October 15, 2009, HUD notified Green of its decision, and Green forwarded the email to Camp. ECF No. 25–2 at 41. Defendants received the new rent schedules from CWV the next day and Camp signed them. ECF Nos. 25–3 at 28; 25–6 at 11. The rent schedules were to be forwarded to the local HUD office for funding, and the iREMS were to be updated to reflect the correct rent schedules. ECF Nos. 25–2 at 42; 25–3 at 28; 25–6 at 11. Plaintiffs failed to complete these tasks or endeavor to discover whether the tasks had been completed. ECF Nos. 25–2 at 43; 25–3 at 28. The new rent schedules laid dormant for over a month, until HUD emailed Green on November 19, 2009, and again on November 24, 2009, to inquire into the status of the process. ECF Nos. 25–2 at 42; 25–3 at 28. On November 24, 2009, Green responded to HUD, acknowledging that the rent schedules had not been forwarded to the HUD office for funding, but stating that they would be at that time and that iREMS had been updated to reflect the HUD approved rents. ECF No. 25–2 at 138. The errors resulted in a loss of revenue equaling $48,017.65. ECF No. 26 at 9.

In late November, 2009, Rudy, after conferring with her boss Carragher and two others,⁵ terminated Plaintiffs. ECF No. 25–1 at 16.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriately granted when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a); see also Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir.2005). The moving party is not required to file affidavits or other similar materials negating a claim upon which its opponent bears the burden of proof, so long as the movant relies upon the absence of the essential element in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party must “show that the non-moving party has failed to establish an essential element of his case upon which he would bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial.” Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 403 (6th Cir.1992).

Once the movant makes a properly supported motion, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute. An opposing party may not simply rely upon its pleadings; rather, it must “produce evidence that results in a conflict of material fact to be resolved by a jury.” Cox v. Ky. Dep't of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir.1995). The non-moving party must, to defeat the motion, “show that there is doubt as to the material facts and that the record, taken as a whole, does not lead to a judgment for the movant.” Guarino, 980 F.2d at 403. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment,the court must view the evidence in...