Hamilton v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-01986 (TNM) |
| Parties | HEATHER HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Heather Hamilton argues that her former employer, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"), interfered with her ability to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and unlawfully fired her for taking such leave. Amtrak disagrees that it interfered with Hamilton's leave and contends that it fired her for upgrading a customer for free in violation of its policies. It moves for summary judgment. As explained below, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could find in Hamilton's favor. The Court will therefore grant Amtrak's motion.
Hamilton began working for Amtrak in 1997. Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts in Genuine Dispute ("PSDMF") ¶ 16, ECF No. 20-1.1 She started as an Auto Train Attendant andthen became an Auto Train Customer Service Representative ("CSR")—both positions were based in Lorton, Virginia. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. CSRs are responsible for, among other things, providing ticketing services to passengers and checking them in before boarding. Id. ¶ 18.
Hamilton took intermittent and continuous leave under the FMLA while working for Amtrak. See Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("DSUMF") ¶ 20, ECF No. 19-1; PSDMF ¶¶ 20, 137, 142, 148, 152. As relevant here, Hamilton requested intermittent leave to care for her daughter in October 2017 based on medical documentation that her child's condition could cause flare-ups three times per year for three to five days per episode. PSDMF ¶¶ 21-23. Amtrak granted this request, which allowed Hamilton to take intermittent leave throughout a one-year period. Id. ¶¶ 22, 142; Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n ("Pl.'s Mem.") Ex. B-1 ("Pl.'s Warner Dep. Exs.") at 9, ECF No. 20-5.2 Before the expiration of the one-year period, Amtrak requested that Hamilton "recertify" her request because it believed Hamilton's absences went beyond the amount of approved leave—specifically, absences occurring three times per year for three to five days per episode. See PSDMF ¶ 146; Pl.'s Warner Dep. Exs. at 9, 12, 14.
In November 2018, Hamilton again requested intermittent leave to care for her daughter. PSDMF ¶ 27. This time, the medical documentation accompanying her request reflected that her estimated absences would increase to accommodate appointments twice per month for two hours each and flare-ups five times per month for eight hours per episode. Id. ¶ 149; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Facts ("Def.'s Resp.") ¶ 149, ECF No. 22-1. Amtrak approved this request the next month, which allowed Hamilton to take intermittent leave for a one-year period. PSDMF ¶¶ 28, 148; Pl.'s Warner Dep. Exs. at 17.
Hamilton also took continuous FMLA leave. She requested leave for a ten-day period in which she was absent from work because of personal issues. PSDMF ¶¶ 30, 151. Amtrak approved this request. Id. ¶¶ 32, 152.
Over the course of her employment with Amtrak, Hamilton was subject to discipline several times for, among other things, unauthorized absences and tardiness. Id. ¶ 33. Rule 24 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the Transportation Communications Union and Amtrak, which governed Hamilton's employment, provides that employees must receive notice and "a fair and impartial investigation" before being disciplined or dismissed unless the employee accepts the discipline or dismissal in writing and "waive[s] formal investigation." Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot.") Ex. B ("Def.'s Hamilton Dep. and Exs.") at 74, ECF No. 19-4; PSDMF ¶¶ 13-14, 39. Hamilton repeatedly waived the investigations.
Amtrak issued Hamilton at least five Notices of Intent to Impose Discipline for the alleged violations. PSDMF ¶¶ 38, 42, 44, 46, 48. It later withdrew one of these discipline notices because Hamilton had in fact obtained approval for the absence. Id. ¶ 48. For at least three of the remaining four incidents, Hamilton waived her right to an investigation, opting instead to accept the discipline imposed. See Def.'s Hamilton Dep. and Exs. at 139-40, 150-52, 157-58; see also PSDMF ¶¶ 43, 45, 47.3
At the center of this case are other disciplinary proceedings in which Amtrak charged Hamilton with providing a passenger a free upgrade in violation of Amtrak's policies. On January 23, 2019, Amtrak Lead Service Attendant James Davis noticed that one frequent passenger, Jack Kelly—who departed from Hamilton's Amtrak station—had been upgraded to adeluxe "roomette" but had only paid for a coach seat. PSDMF ¶¶ 60-63. Davis contacted a Lead CSR at the Lorton station, Cynthia Thurston, who reviewed Kelly's boarding pass and recognized the handwriting on it as Hamilton's. Id. ¶ 65.
Amtrak then investigated the incident. Station Manager Jacqueline Clark, Hamilton's supervisor, determined that Hamilton had checked Kelly in and issued him the upgrade without charging the added fee, which led to a $471 loss for Amtrak. Id. ¶¶ 69, 73-74. Clark recommended that Hamilton be suspended for 30 days, but Superintendent of Station Operations and Customer Service Michael Jerew instructed that formal charges be brought against Hamilton and that she be removed from service in the interim. Id. ¶¶ 75, 77.
In accordance with Rule 24 of the CBA, a hearing was held in which both Hamilton and Amtrak could present witnesses and evidence. Id. ¶¶ 81, 83. The Hearing Officer who presides over such a hearing must impartially determine whether the charges are proven, but she does not decide whether discipline is warranted. Id. ¶ 95. Hamilton was represented at the hearing by a union representative. Id. ¶ 82. Among other witnesses, Amtrak presented Davis (who testified about his discovery of the upgrade) and Thurston (who testified that she recognized the handwriting on Kelly's boarding pass as Hamilton's). Def.'s Mot. Ex. D ("Def.'s Jerew Dep. and Exs.") at 53-63, 75-76, ECF No. 19-6; PSDMF ¶¶ 85, 87.
For her part, Hamilton testified that, although she checked Kelly in on January 23, Second Lead Agent Luis Figueroa instructed her to upgrade Kelly. Def.'s Jerew Dep. and Exs. at 113-14, 123; PSDMF ¶ 92. She also related that she and Kelly did not share a personal relationship. Def.'s Jerew Dep. and Exs. at 113; PSDMF ¶ 93. Kelly testified on Hamilton's behalf, as well, stating that she did not upgrade him and that, while he brought station employees pizza and gave them holiday tips, he and Hamilton did not have a personal relationship. Def.'sJerew Dep. and Exs. at 99-102; PSDMF ¶ 91. Figueroa did not testify at the hearing, as he was on vacation. PSDMF ¶¶ 81, 83.
The Hearing Officer concluded that Hamilton issued Kelly the upgrade on her own, without being directed by Figueroa. Def.'s Hamilton Dep. and Exs. at 226-28; PSDMF ¶¶ 99-106. The Hearing Officer relied in part on the work schedule, which showed that Figueroa was working outside on the day of the incident, not at the ticket counter. Def.'s Hamilton Dep. and Exs. at 228. She concluded that Kelly's testimony on Hamilton's behalf was "unpersuasive" because his recollection of what had occurred was "fuzzy," but she noted that Kelly did not recall seeing Figueroa—a person who he knew. Id. In the Hearing Officer's view, nothing else in the record corroborated Hamilton's assertion that Figueroa told Hamilton to issue the upgrade. Id.
After the Hearing Officer's decision, Amtrak investigated further. Jerew interviewed Figueroa to determine whether he directed Hamilton to issue the upgrade. PSDMF ¶ 108. Figueroa told Jerew that he did not instruct Hamilton to upgrade Kelly or permit her to do so, and he provided a signed statement averring as much.4 DSUMF ¶ 110. Jerew, along with a manager in Amtrak's Labor Relations Department and Associate Vice President of Station Operations Robert Jordan, then decided to terminate Hamilton's employment. Def.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mem.") at 15, ECF No. 19-2; PSDMF ¶ 220. Amtrak informed Hamilton of her termination by letter. PSDMF ¶ 112.
Hamilton appealed her termination, as well as the Hearing Officer's decision, to Amtrak's Labor Relations Department, which denied her request. Id. ¶¶ 121, 123. Hamilton could have, but did not, appeal this decision to the tribunal established under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. PSDMF ¶ 124.
Instead, Hamilton sued Amtrak, alleging that Amtrak unlawfully fired her for requesting FMLA leave. See Compl. ¶¶ 36-37. Amtrak now moves for summary judgment. Def.'s Mot. at 1. The motion is ripe.5 Pl.'s Mem.; Def.'s Reply Mem. ("Def.'s Reply"), ECF No. 22.
To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must "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. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). "A fact is material if it 'might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,' and a dispute about a material fact is genuine 'if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The moving party has the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record that show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once it has met this burden, the nonmoving party must "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324 (cleaned up).
At summary judgment, "[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn" in her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. But the nonmoving party's opposition must consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials; it must be supported by affidavits, declarations, or other competent evidence settingforth specific facts showing that...
To continue reading
Request your trial