Gulley v. Dist. of Columbia, Case No. 1:18-cv-02607 (TNM)

• Decision Date: 15 July 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:18-cv-02607 (TNM)
• Parties: Jason S. GULLEY, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

474 F.Supp.3d 154

Jason S. GULLEY, Plaintiff,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-02607 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed July 15, 2020

Jeffrey J. Sadri, Pro Hac Vice, Paul V. Bennett, Bennett & Ellison, P.C., Annapolis, MD, for Plaintiff.

Michelle Guyette Hersh, Robert A. DeBerardinis, Jr., Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

Jason Gulley joined the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") in March 2000. Over the next 16 years, he was promoted twice, ultimately becoming a Lieutenant. But that lofty rank was short-lived. Within a year, Gulley was demoted back to Sergeant. A few years later, MPD terminated him altogether.

Gulley, who is Caucasian, sued the District of Columbia for racial discrimination and retaliation, claiming that MPD favored minority officers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Pending here is the District's motion for summary judgment.

The District argues that most of Gulley's allegations are administratively barred. And for those that remain, the District maintains that it terminated him because of his long history of disciplinary infractions, not for any discriminatory purpose. Gulley claims that the District's explanations are an illegal pretext for its discriminatory intent. Upon careful review of the briefs and the record, the Court agrees with the District. Gulley's disciplinary infractions and other misconduct gave the District ample cause for its actions. As explained more fully below, the Court holds that no reasonable jury could find in Gulley's favor. The District is entitled to summary judgment.

I.

MPD hired Jason Gulley as a Police Officer in March 2000. Def.’s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts ("SUMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 23-1. In October 2006, he was promoted to Sergeant. Pl.’s Opp'n at 1, ECF No. 29.¹ In April 2016, he was promoted to Lieutenant. Id.

In March 2017, Gulley filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging racial discrimination and retaliation from June 21, 2014, until February 28, 2017. Charge of Discrimination ("March 2017 Charge"), ECF No. 23-4. In that charge, Gulley alleged that his supervisors wrongfully accused him of engaging in an extramarital affair with one of his subordinates. March 2017 Charge at 4. He also alleged that MPD unjustly suspended him for 15 days for disobeying a direct order after he patrolled with that subordinate, despite Gulley's claim that no one ever issued him the order. Id. ; see January 2015 DRB Rpt., ECF No. 24-2 (finding that Gulley disobeyed his supervisor's orders by changing the subordinate's vehicle assignment without authorization and patrolling outside his assigned area). And he said his supervisors revoked his police powers and transferred him to a new assignment "out of retaliation." March 2017 Charge at 5; see id. at 4–5. Gulley also said that "[b]ecause of the discipline" MPD had imposed, he "was disqualified from" a position for which he had applied as a Sergeant with the Homeland Security Bureau–Tactical Information Division. Id. at 5. Instead, he claimed, "my spot was given to a black female ... who did not even apply." Id.

Gulley's March 2017 Charge also included claims of discrimination after MPD promoted him in April 2016. He challenged a 15-day suspension without pay that his new supervisor levied after Gulley inappropriately authorized the strip search of a prisoner. Id. at 6. He also objected to his suspension without pay for 20 days for failing to account for the keys to a police cruiser and for not going to the scene of a serious event, despite Gulley's assessment "that the event was not serious and two other lieutenants were on scene." Id. And Gulley complained that an African-American Sergeant made a racially motivated complaint against him, for which he was demoted from Lieutenant back to Sergeant and suspended without pay for 30 days, while the Sergeant went unpunished. Id. at 6–7. Finally, Gulley challenged a February 2017 suspension without pay for 65 days. Id. at 7.

The EEOC responded by form letter on August 10, 2017. Dismissal and Notice of Rights ("August 2017 Right-to-Sue"), ECF No. 23-5. The EEOC informed Gulley that it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes." Id. It informed Gulley of his right to sue for the allegations. Id. In capitalized, underlined, boldfaced type, the letter warned Gulley that for any claim under Title VII, "Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice ; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost." Id.

In April 2018, Gulley filed a second Charge of Discrimination with the Virginia Division of Human Rights and the EEOC, again for racial discrimination and retaliation. Charge of Discrimination ("April 2018 Charge"), ECF No. 23-6. In it, Gulley again raised his claim that he was punished unjustly after the African-American Sergeant complained about him. Id. at 1; cf. March 2017 Charge at 6–7. Gulley added that since his March 2017 Charge, he had reported to the Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") that the Sergeant had perjured herself at his disciplinary hearing, but the IAD failed to investigate his complaint. April 2018 Charge at 1. And to bolster his claim of discrimination, Gulley cited an incident in October 2017 in which two Hispanic officers were arrested for directing racial slurs and profanity at African-American officers yet faced no discipline. Id. Finally, Gulley claimed that MPD had retaliated against him for filing his IAD complaint against the African-American Sergeant. Id.²

Like its response to his first charge of discrimination, the EEOC once again sent Gulley a form letter response to the April 2018 Charge. Dismissal and Notice of Rights ("August 2018 Right-to-Sue"), ECF No. 23-7. The EEOC sent that letter on August 14, 2018. Id. Once again, the EEOC was unable to verify the claims. Id. And it included the same deadline for Gulley to file a civil suit within 90 days. Id. This time Gulley did so. He filed his Complaint here exactly 90 days later. Compl., ECF No. 1.

After Gulley filed his Complaint, the IAD completed a 100-page investigative report into many allegations of on- and off-duty misconduct against him. April 2019 IAD Rpt., ECF No. 24-10. That investigation sustained nine allegations against Gulley. See id. at 1–5. Among them was an incident in January 2019 that the IAD concluded was "conduct unbecoming an officer, including acts detrimental to good discipline, conduct that would adversely affect the employee's or the agency's ability to perform effectively." Id. at 2. The investigation found that Gulley threatened to kill his wife and members of MPD in front of his 16-year-old daughter, which led his wife to call deputy sheriffs to their home in northern Virginia. Id. at 2, 9 n.2. The report found that after the deputies responded to the call, Gulley "spoke aggressively and in a demeaning manner" to the deputies while identifying himself as a member of MPD. Id. at 3. And the investigation found that Gulley told them that MPD's Chief of Police was a "piece of sh—" who "knocked his wife's teeth out." Id. at 14.

That incident followed another sustained allegation of misconduct when Gulley's wife called law enforcement to their home. Id. at 1. In December 2018, Gulley "consumed a quantity of alcohol that lead [sic] to Mrs. Gulley and [their daughter] fearing for their safety and calling" the local sheriff. Id. When deputies arrived, Gulley's wife described him as an alcoholic. Id. at 9. Gulley's daughter added that her father had beaten Mrs. Gulley before and said "once he drinks he is going to beat her" again. Id. After Gulley refused to leave the house, Mrs. Gulley took her daughter away for the night. Id. at 9–10. The deputies left without charging Gulley, id. at 11, but the IAD investigation concluded that Gulley "provided false statements" to the reporting deputies and sustained a violation of MPD's General Order against "being under the influence of ‘alcoholic beverage’ when off duty," id. at 1.

IAD also sustained a separate violation from that incident for conduct "prejudicial to the reputation of the MPD" because Gulley "laughingly disclosed" to the deputies "an instance of misconduct that he was previously investigated for and demoted." Id. at 5. While they were questioning Gulley about his wife and daughter's claims, he "said that he was ‘tired of being the white cop in a black neighborhood’ " and recalled how he had "told a room full of D.C. citizens that they did not pay his salary because half of them were on welfare." Id.

And the investigation also sustained allegations of on-duty misconduct. On the day of his wife's 911 call in December 2018, Gulley was Absent Without Leave ("AWOL") when he left his assignment before completing his shift. Id. at 2. The investigation also concluded that Gulley neglected his duties as "check-off official" by failing to supervise the officers on his shift. Id. at 3. And it found that Gulley had failed to conduct a required test of his Body Worn Camera or to wear it for his entire shift. Id. at 5.

After the IAD investigation, MPD notified Gulley of further disciplinary action and ultimately his termination. Gulley filed an Amended Complaint in August 2019, in which he added allegations of discrimination and retaliation. Am. Compl., ECF No. 15. First, Gulley claimed that MPD discriminated against him by making him use sick leave to obtain medical care for an injury he sustained in October 2018 that MPD wrongly determined had occurred outside the line of duty. Id. ¶ 40. Next, Gulley claimed that MPD wrongly posted his photograph and an officer safety bulletin after the domestic violence call his wife made in January 2019. Id. ¶ 45; see Pl.’s Dep. at 153:20–154:2, ECF No....