Hogan v. Hayden

• Decision Date: 11 September 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-cv-1382 (TSC)
• Parties: Paula Suzanne HOGAN, Plaintiff, v. Carla HAYDEN, Librarian of Congress, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

406 F.Supp.3d 32

Paula Suzanne HOGAN, Plaintiff,

v.Carla HAYDEN, Librarian of Congress, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 16-cv-1382 (TSC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 11, 2019

Ari Micha Wilkenfeld, Katherine Ruth Atkinson, Wilkenfeld Herendeen & Atkinson, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Damon William Taaffe, Derek S. Hammond, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TANYA S. CHUTKAN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Paula Suzanne Hogan, a former employee of the Library of Congress (the Library), brings this suit against Defendant, Carla Hayden,¹ Librarian of Congress, alleging gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ; age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) ; and pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).

Currently pending before the court is the Library's Motion for Summary Judgment. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 20. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Library hired Hogan in 2004. See Def.'s St. of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Dispute (Def.'s SOF), ECF No. 20-2 ¶ 1.² In 2012, Hogan began to manage the Library's Gershwin Prize for Popular Song (Gershwin Prize). Id. ¶¶ 17, 22. On August 6, 2015, the Library terminated Hogan from her position as Special Assistant to the Librarian. Id. ¶¶ 3, 84.

Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress during all relevant times in this case, appointed Robert Newlen to the position of Chief of Staff in December 2014. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. As Chief of Staff, Newlen oversaw six divisions within the Office of the Librarian. Id. ¶ 10. The parties dispute whether Newlen supervised Hogan and whether she reported to Newlen or Billington between December 2014 and her termination in August 2015. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s St. of Undisputed Fact (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF), ECF No. 22-2 ¶ 9.

Once Newlen became Chief of Staff, he met individually with all staff in the Office of the Librarian, including Hogan, to discuss their roles and responsibilities. Id. ¶ 30. Hogan first met with Newlen and the newly-appointed Deputy Librarian, David Mao, on January 20, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 34–36. The parties dispute the purpose of the January 20 meeting and whether Newlen attempted to learn about or discuss Hogan's role. Id. ¶ 37. On February 4, 2015, Newlen and Billington met with Hogan to inform her of the decision to relocate her office and the Gershwin Prize responsibilities from the Office of the Librarian to the Music Division, in the same building. Def.'s SOF ¶ 43. They also informed Hogan that she was receiving: (1) access to additional office space at the Library's facility in Culpeper, VA, (2) two additional work responsibilities beyond the Gershwin Prize, and (3) a "Time-Off and Special Achievement" award for her work on the 2014 Gershwin Prize. Id. ¶¶ 43–45; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 39, 41.

On April 17, 2015, Hogan copied Tim Swift, CEO of Bounce, the production company that oversees the Gershwin Prize, on her e-mail to Newlen inquiring about funds for submitting the Gershwin Prize for consideration for an Emmy Award. Def.'s SOF ¶ 51. Newlen removed Swift from the e-mail chain and told Hogan to consult with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) regarding funding. Id. ¶ 52. On April 22, 2015, Hogan again copied Swift on an e-mail to Newlen, along with two OGC attorneys and Billington's confidential assistant, stating that she believed funding was available for the Emmy nomination and that she had "great concerns about our way forward and our support for those entities who have supported the Library." Id. ¶ 55. Newlen replied, once again removing Swift from the e-mail, asking Hogan for a budget for an Emmy nomination submission, along with a series of questions about the award. Id. ¶ 56. The parties dispute whether Hogan told Newlen that her name would be the only Library employee listed on the Emmy nomination and award. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶ 110.

On the evening of April 24, Hogan entered the Congressional Relations Office (CRO) conference room to look for a congressional calendar. Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 57–59. The Library considers the CRO to be restricted space because it contains "sensitive files about Congressional members and their inquiries to the Library." Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶ 60. The parties dispute whether Hogan needed permission to be in the CRO after hours. Id. ¶ 61. Congressional Relations Specialist Brian Williams walked into the CRO conference room as Hogan was looking through a box of "briefing folders" prepared for new Members of Congress and their staff. Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 57, 59. When Williams and Kathleen Ott, Williams' supervisor and the CRO Director, met the following week, Williams told Ott that he had seen Hogan looking through files in the CRO conference room. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶ 62. Ott immediately reported the incident to Newlen because she believed Hogan engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. Def.'s SOF ¶ 64. Hogan claims that before entering the conference room she checked to see if Ott was in her office and that she had called Ott's office to ask for a calendar. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶ 63.

Because Hogan had copied Swift on internal e-mail chains and entered the CRO conference room after hours, Newlen sought access to Hogan's e-mail account on April 27, 2019 to determine whether she was engaging in other misconduct. Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 68–69. Newlen requested access to Hogan's e-mails pursuant to Library of Congress Regulation (LCR) 1621, which authorizes the Library to access and monitor an employee's use of her government computer in several instances, including if management believes the employee has engaged in misconduct. Id. ¶ 66; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶ 65. The parties dispute whether the Library was required to notify Hogan that her e-mails were being monitored and whether Library employees have an expectation of privacy with respect to their e-mail communications, Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 65, 73, but it is undisputed that Library employees are notified by a security banner each time they log onto their computer stating that their e-mails are subject to monitoring and review by Library management. Def.'s SOF ¶ 67.

While Newlen waited for approval to access Hogan's e-mails, he met with Hogan on April 28, 2015. The parties dispute the purpose of the meeting, but it is undisputed that during the meeting, Newlen instructed Hogan to stop copying Swift on internal Library communications. Id. ¶ 94. Both Newlen and Hogan allege the other party engaged in hostile behavior during this meeting. Pl.'s Op. Summ. J., ECF No. 22-5, Ex. 22 at 14 (Hogan's Answers to Interrog.) ("Mr. Newlen raised his voice, criticized me, and called me a liar.... Mr. Newlen raised his voice and said, ‘You think everything is about you – stop being so emotional. You are the worst, most unprofessional employee I have seen in 40 years, I feel embarrassed for you.’ The meeting ended when he yelled for me to get out of his office."); Notice of Proposed Adverse Action, ECF No. 22-6, Ex. 50 at 4 ("During our meeting [Hogan] continued to interrupt me as I was talking and became increasingly agitated and disrespectful in deportment towards me. Specifically, [Hogan's] face turned red, [she] pointed [her] finger at me, began moving forward in [her] chair and became very loud and agitated.").

The Library's Information Technology Security Group approved Newlen's request, and he received access to Hogan's e-mails on April 29, 2015. Id. ¶ 70. After Newlen began his review, he asked the OGC to complete the review to determine whether there were other acts of misconduct. Id. ¶ 71.

The same day he received access to Hogan's emails, Newlen issued Hogan an "Administrative Leave and Notice of Intent" memorandum, which placed her on administrative leave while the Library investigated whether she engaged in misconduct. Pl.'s Op. Summ. J., Ex. 47. While the parties dispute whether Hogan could remain on administrative leave indefinitely, Newlen issued Hogan a telework status memorandum on May 8, 2015, converting her administrative leave status to telework status. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶ 77.

The Library alleges the search of Hogan's e-mails revealed several instances of inappropriate conduct, insubordination, and ethical violations. Def.'s SOF ¶ 78. It claims the emails showed that Hogan allegedly violated Library of Congress Regulation (LCR) 2023-5, Gifts, Entertainment and Favors , which bars employees from soliciting or accepting any gift, including entertainment, from a person who has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual or other business or financial relations with the Library. Id. ¶ 93. At Hogan's urging, the Library had formally contracted with Swift's company in May 2014 to produce the Gershwin Prize. Id. ¶¶ 23, 85–87. From 2013 through 2015, Hogan accepted tickets from Swift to the Grammys and MusiCares awards shows and solicited a Grammys ticket for her sister. Id. ¶¶ 23, 85–93. The parties dispute whether Hogan received approval to attend the shows. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 89, 92. The e-mails also revealed that Hogan forwarded four internal Library e-mails to Swift immediately after Newlen instructed her to stop copying Swift on internal e-mails, Def.'s SOF ¶ 96, including one e-mail that said the following: "Just to keep you up to date. Since they get upset when I CC you, I did not want to take a chance that they would check my e-mail for a BCC so here you go." See ECF No. 20-9, Ex. 55 (Hogan Email). Hogan also sent several e-mails to longstanding Library donors, artists, contractors, and partners between February and April 2015, complaining about Newlen and the Library, in violation of Library of Congress Regulations 2023-2, Conduct in...