Hunter v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

• Decision Date: 02 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-1494 (CKK)
• Citation: 485 F.Supp.3d 65
• Parties: Ernest HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

485 F.Supp.3d 65

Ernest HUNTER, Plaintiff,

v.WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 18-1494 (CKK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 2, 2020

Jeffrey A. Bartos, Guerrieri, Bartos & Roma PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Ernest Hunter, Waldorf, MD, pro se.

Michael Kelly Guss, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge Ernest Hunter ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, was an employee of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA") from May 20, 2013 through the time of his termination, on October 14, 2017. Plaintiff filed suit against WMATA under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , alleging claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff also raises separate claims of breach of contract, negligent supervision, defamation, and for certain whistleblower violations. Presently before the Court is WMATA's [27] Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole,¹ the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART WMATA's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court grants Defendant's Motion with respect to Count I (gender discrimination), Count III (breach of contract), Count IV (negligent supervision), Count V (defamation), and Count VI (whistleblower violations). The Court denies Defendant's Motion with respect to Count II (retaliation).

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Ernest Hunter was a male employee of WMATA's Small Business Program's Office, who worked as a Disadvantage Business Enterprise ("DBE") Compliance Specialist from May 20, 2013 to October 14, 2017. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 1. In this role, Plaintiff oversaw contractual relationships with disadvantaged businesses, ensuring WMATA's compliance with applicable federal regulations. Hunter Dep. 14:14–15:2. Plaintiff alleges that he was the only male DBE Compliance Specialist within the DBE office. Am. Compl. ¶ 4. During his employment at WMATA, Plaintiff's bargaining unit was the Office and Professional Employees International Union ("OPEIU") Local No. 2 ("Local 2"). Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 2–3. Local 2 provided grievance procedures for its members challenging employment practices within WMATA, including termination. Id.

As a WMATA employee, Plaintiff was party to several informal and formal complaints. First, Plaintiff was the subject of multiple internal investigations initiated by a "long tenured" female colleague within the DBE office. Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 3, ECF No. 28-1 (Hunter Decl.), ¶¶ 4–5. These investigations concerned Plaintiff's alleged non-compliance with certain internal WMATA policies and procedures, as well as allegations of inappropriate work place discussions. See id. at Ex. 1 (Owens Decl.), ¶ 8; see also Hunter Dep. 24:1. WMATA conducted witness interviews regarding this alleged misconduct, but ultimately deemed the complaints to be "frivolous." Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 3, ECF No. 28-1 (Hunter Decl.), ¶¶ 4–5; see also id. at Ex. 2 (Toulson Decl.), ¶ 7.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed his own internal complaint of gender discrimination in response to the prior complaints lodged against him by his female colleague. See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 4, ECF No. 27-4 (Mem. to L. Johnson); see also Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 4. In his gender discrimination complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the offending colleague had circulated a petition to remove him from his job and had filed unfounded workplace violence complaints against him. See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 4, ECF No. 27-4. The WMATA General Counsel, however, concluded on August 2, 2016, that the complaint "fail[ed] to state a claim that would constitute an unlawful employment action." Def.’s Mot., Ex. 5, ECF No. 27-5 (Letter from C. Hoadley); see also Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 5. Plaintiff contends that WMATA did not interview any of his proffered witnesses before dismissing this complaint. Am. Compl. ¶ 8; see also Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 2, ECF No. 28-1 (Toulson Decl.), ¶ 8.

Shortly after WMATA concluded its investigation of Plaintiff's 2016 gender discrimination complaint, it hired Mr. Erick Wilkes as the new permanent manager of the DBE program in September 2016. Am. Compl. ¶ 18. Plaintiff had also applied for this position, but WMATA did not interview him for the job. Hunter Dep. 22:6–8. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Wilkes lacked the prerequisite experience to manage the DBE office. Am. Compl. ¶ 18. In early 2017, WMATA also hired Frank Jones as the Chief of Fair Practices, a position overseeing both the DBE program and WMATA's EEOC program. Id. ¶ 20. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Jones also lacked an understanding of the DBE Program and its purpose. Id. ¶ 22. Ultimately, on April 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an internal complaint with the WMATA inspector general ("OIG") asserting that the leadership of both Erick Wilkes and Frank Jones was a "hindrance" to the organization. Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 14, ECF No. 28-1 (OIG Complaint).

Following Plaintiff's OIG complaint, WMATA began to reevaluate the purpose and structure of the DBE program. Am. Compl. ¶ 23. In June 2017, Plaintiff met with external consultants to discuss the improvement of processes and procedures within the department. Pl.’s Opp'n, at Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 26. At this meeting, Plaintiff shared his concerns regarding DBE's discriminatory hiring practices and the poor communication skills of Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Jones. Id. ¶¶ 27–28. Plaintiff received no indication from the consultant that WMATA intended to eliminate the DBE program altogether. Id. ¶ 26.

On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff was called into a meeting (the "June 26 meeting") with Mr. Wilkes, Mr. Jones, and the DBE staff. See Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 3, ECF No. 28-1 (Hunter Decl.), ¶ 21. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Wilkes asked the DBE team for input regarding any operational shortcomings the staff had observed. See Hunter Dep. 35:10–20. In response to Mr. Wilkes's query, a female DBE employee, Betty Toulson, expressed her view that management had not provided sufficient support for the DBE small business program. Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 2, ECF No. 28-1 (Toulson Decl.), ¶ 11. Following Ms. Toulson's comment, Plaintiff also attempted to voice his criticism, but Mr. Jones immediately took issue with Plaintiff's participation. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. Plaintiff tried again to speak, but Mr. Jones continued to "censor" him, requesting that Plaintiff remain silent. Id. The situation quickly became "toxic," with Mr. Jones calling for security and telling Plaintiff he would "end up on the curb." Id. ¶ 14. Mr. Jones then verbally terminated Plaintiff at the June 26 meeting, see Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 11, ECF No. 28-1 (C. Svoboda Witness Stmt.), and Mr. Wilkes notified WMATA Human Resources of Plaintiff's "immediate termination ... due to insubordination." Id. at Ex. 23, ECF No. 28-1 (Email from E. Wilkes). According to Plaintiff, Mr. Jones later placed pictures of Plaintiff at various WMATA security stations. Am. Compl. ¶ 32.

In response to his termination, Plaintiff reached out to his Local 2 Shop Steward, William Geroux. Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 3, ECF No. 28-1 (Hunter Decl.), ¶ 28. Mr. Geroux promptly filed a Step 2 grievance in a memorandum to Frank Jones, challenging Plaintiff's alleged verbal termination. See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 6, ECF No. 27-6 (Mem. from W. Geroux). On June 28, 2017, Mr. Wilkes clarified that, in fact, Plaintiff had not been terminated, but instead would remain on administrative leave pending an investigation of the events that occurred during the June 26 meeting. Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 22, ECF No. 28-1 (Letter from E. Wilkes). Shortly thereafter, on July 6, 2017, Plaintiff and Mr. Geroux met with Mr. Wilkes to discuss the ongoing investigation into the June 26 meeting. Pl.’s Opp'n, at Pl.s Stmt. ¶ 37.

On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a formal charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging gender and religious discrimination, as well as retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Def.’s Mot., Ex. 11, ECF No. 27-11. The complaint exclusively addressed alleged misconduct from the June 26 meeting. Id. Four days later, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights Letter. Id. at Ex. 12, ECF No. 27-12. On the same day, Frank Jones confirmed in a memorandum to Mr. Geroux that Plaintiff remained on paid administrative leave, pending his investigation. Id. at Ex. 7, ECF No. 27-7. Nonetheless, Mr. Geroux filed a Step 3 grievance on July 17, 2017, seeking clarification on the "verbal termination procedure" used against Plaintiff at the June 26 meeting. Id. at Ex. 8, ECF No. 27-8. A Step 3 grievance meeting then occurred on July 26, 2017, and on August 1, 2017, WMATA confirmed in a letter to Mr. Geroux that Plaintiff was not deemed to have been terminated at any point. Id. at Ex. 9, ECF No. 27-9. Following WMATA's August 1, 2017 correspondence, no further actions appears to have been taken regarding this specific grievance. See Pl.’s Opp'n, at Pl.s Stmt. ¶ 12.

On August 8, 2017, WMATA informed the Local 2 President of its decision to restructure the DBE department and eliminate seven union positions, including Plaintiff's. Id. at Ex. 10, ECF No. 27-10 (Letter from G. Gray). Mr. Jones notified Plaintiff directly the same day that his DBE position had been removed and advised Plaintiff that he would remain on administrative leave for an additional sixty days. Pl.’s Opp'n, Ex. 18, ECF No. 28-1 (Letter from F. Jones). Shortly thereafter, WMATA Human Resources employee, Amy Quillen, informed Plaintiff of his "bumping rights," which provided for his transfer to another union position for which he was deemed qualified. Id. at Ex. 26, ECF No. 28-1 (Email from A. Quillen). On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff proposed a list of eleven desired positions, id. , but was later informed by Ms. Quillen that he was unqualified for any of the positions he had selected. See id. at Ex. 25, ECF No. 28-1 (Not. of...