Jackson v. Geithner, CASE NO. CV F 11-0055 LJO SKO

• Decision Date: 02 June 2011
• Docket Number: CASE NO. CV F 11-0055 LJO SKO,Doc. 139.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: RUDY JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant.

RUDY JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant.

CASE NO. CV F 11-0055 LJO SKO

Doc. 139.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: June 2, 2011

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner ("Secretary") seeks summary judgment in the absence of evidence to support plaintiff Rudy Jackson's ("Mr. Jackson's") discrimination and retaliation claims based on reassignment of his duties to a coworker and purported demotion. Mr. Jackson responds that the less experienced coworker's promotion was a racially discriminatory demotion for Mr. Jackson. This Court considered the Secretary's summary judgment motion on the record¹ without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS the Secretary summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Summary

Mr. Jackson is black, worked at the Fresno IRS Service Center ("Fresno center") for more than 30 years in various departments, and voluntarily retired in 2005. During 1992-2005, Mr. Jackson worked as a safety Management Assistant, which was colloquially referred to as a "safety officer." In this action, Mr. Jackson pursues discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., in that some of his duties were reassigned to a coworker to treat the coworker more favorably than Mr. Jackson and to retaliate against Mr. Jackson's pursuit of an administrative class action in April 2001.² The Secretary challenges the absence of adverse action and damages resulting from reassignment of duties or the coworker's promotion.

Mr. Jackson's Safety Officer Position And The New HazMat Program Analyst Position

As a Management Assistant or safety officer, Mr. Jackson's duties included:

1. Oversight of safety issues at the Fresno center;

2. Safety inspections and employee safety training; and

3. Serving as a liaison with the IRS national office, local fire departments, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA").

Mr. Jackson also helped "roll out" the Safety and Health Information Management Systems ("SHIMS") program and describes himself as "the first full time safety officer for the IRS in Fresno."

In the late 1990s or early 2000, a support services specialist/HazMat program analyst position ("HazMat analyst") was created for the Fresno center. In her declaration, Margaret Frech ("Ms. Frech"), the former security and safety section chief and current facilities branch manager for the Fresno center, states the HazMat analyst position was needed "because the workload related to information about the handling and disposal of biological/chemical hazardous materials at the IRS facility was increasing."During 1999-2002, Rosanna Rodriguez ("Ms. Rodriguez") served as the HazMat analyst.³ Both Ms. Frech and Ms. Rodriguez declare: "A full-time, dedicated position was necessary to accommodate the expanded duties." The HazMat analyst position was assigned a General Schedule ("GS") 11 level.

In early 2002, Ms. Rodriguez left the HazMat analyst position, and Barbara Mecca ("Ms. Mecca") was assigned a temporary detail to the HazMat analyst position and assumed Ms. Rodriguez' duties. In his declaration, Mr. Jackson states: "I was instructed to allow her to shadow me, which she did for six months." Mr. Jackson criticizes Ms. Mecca's "little experience in the area."

Two or three weeks after Ms. Mecca began her HazMat analyst detail, Ms. Frech, as supervisor, assigned Ms. Mecca Safety Program responsibilities. Ms. Frech and Ms. Mecca declare that the "Safety Program's workload was increasing as the program was being expanded" and that to "accommodate the increased workload," Ms. Frech assigned Ms. Mecca "some responsibilities in the Safety Program" and Ms. Mecca "assumed the position of Safety Officer/HazMat Program Analyst."

In May or June 2002, Ms. Frech assigned Ms. Mecca management of the Ergonomics Team, which up to that time had been managed by a different office. Ms. Mecca had prior ergonomics experience. Mr. Jackson had no prior responsibility to manage the Ergonomics Team.

Mr. Jackson claims that during Ms. Mecca's first two years, he "trained her on safety and hazardous materials matters." Mr. Jackson declares that he trained Ms. Mecca "in late 2004 or early 2005 on SHIMS."

The Secretary notes that as of September 2002, Ms. Mecca and Mr. Jackson's respective duties had been divided. Ms. Frech declares: "I did not assign duties to Ms. Mecca from Mr. Jackson after 2002, including from October 2002 through December 2002." Ms. Mecca declares: "I have no recollection of assuming responsibilities from Mr. Jackson after September 2002, including from October 2002 through December 2002." The Secretary explains that although there was overlap in their duties, Ms. Mecca and Mr. Jackson "performed different duties."

Ms. Mecca's safety officer/HazMat analyst duties included providing information for responses or reports to the IRS National Safety Office. The Secretary attributes to Mr. Jackson to identify only aportion of national reviews and some HazMat duties that were reassigned to Ms. Rodriguez or Ms. Mecca from Mr. Jackson. In his deposition, Mr. Jackson testified that he could not remember specifically how national review responsibility was split. Mr. Jackson claimed that HazMat duties were "officially" transferred to Ms. Rodriguez and Ms. Mecca but he maintained responsibility for such duties. In his declaration, Mr. Jackson identified his duties as of his October 3, 2005 retirement to include: "indoor air quality, Safety and Health Information Management Systems (SHIMS) program, investigating all accidents, meeting with the site counsel, all three directors, and dealing with OSHA and GSA,⁴ national reviews and root cause analysis."

Snubbing And "Demotion" Of Mr. Jackson

Ms. Mecca notes that in 2003 or 2004, she assisted Jeff Cole and Mr. Jackson "on an analysis of workers compensation cases." Mr. Jackson declares: "It was ordered that Barbara Mecca sit in on the project." Mr. Jackson claims that "[w]hen the project was completed and recognition given, credit was given to Cole and Mecca, my name was not mentioned."

In 2004, the HazMat analyst position was re-graded throughout the IRS as a GS 12 level position. Ms. Mecca applied for and was selected to the position. Mr. Jackson did not apply for the position. Mr. Jackson declares that at an "employees town hall meeting" on an unidentified date, manager Linda Holbrook ("Ms. Holbrook") announced that "the IRS was going to announce 'Rosanna's old GS-11 position' at the GS-12 level. As a GS-8 I could apply for the GS-11 but not the GS-12."

Mr. Jackson claims that Ms. Mecca's GS 12 level promotion was his demotion. He declares:

I had worked as "Safety Officer" since 1991, but with the hiring of Mecca to the GS 12 position, I was demoted to the "Safety Assistant" position. At the time Mecca came into the safety unit, she had little experience in the area and as a result of the training I gave her, she was promoted and I was, in effect demoted.

Mr. Jackson also points to the deposition testimony of his supervisor Melinda Winston ("Ms. Winston"):

Q. Isn't it true that up until that time Mr. Jackson had been the lead in safety issues and that he was referred to as a safety officer?

A. That's true.

Q. In fact, he was at least verbally demoted from a safety officer to a safety assistant, correct?

...

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. ROBINSON: So he went from being the lead on safety to being an assistant, correct?

A. Correct.

Mr. Jackson declares that he was embarrassed during a meeting with executives and safety officers from around the nation when "Ms. Mecca introduced herself as Safety/HazMat Officer and introduced me as safety assistant."

Mr. Jackson never sought to have his safety Management Assistant position re-graded. The only promotion he applied for relative to that position was in 1999 when Mr. Rodriguez obtained the HazMat analyst position. Mr. Jackson received no official demotion or decrease in pay or benefits from 2000 to his 2005 retirement. After Mr. Jackson retired, his safety Management Assistant position was downgraded to a GS 7 level.

Mr. Jackson's Administrative Claim

On December 5, 2002, Mr. Jackson sought informal counseling to address his complaint that other employees were prepared and passed over Mr. Jackson for promotions. Mr. Jackson submitted a March 11, 2003 formal administrative complaint to claim age, race and sex discrimination and retaliation for April 2001 pursuit of an administrative class complaint in that management develops and promotes others to prevent his advancement and has minimized his duties.

Mr. Jackson's Claims And Damages

This Court dismissed several of Mr. Jackson's SAC discrimination and retaliation claims. After appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and its affirming and reversing in part dismissal of claims, Mr. Jackson is limited to the SAC's following Title VII claim: "In or around 2002, Jackson's duties were reduced and given to non-African-American employees in higher graded positions as retaliation against Jackson's complaints of race discrimination."

Mr. Jackson seeks lost wages of $52,998, the difference between his actual and GS 12 levelwages during 2001-2005. Mr. Jackson claims $300,000 compensatory damages for emotional distress.

DISCUSSION

Summary Judgment Standards

The Secretary seeks summary judgment in the absence of Mr. Jackson suffering adverse action with reassignment of job duties and a causal link between his administrative class complaint and transfer of duties.

F.R.Civ.P. 56(a) permits a party to seek summary judgment "identifying each claim or defense - or the part of each claim or defense - on which summary judgment is sought." "A district court may dispose of a particular claim or defense by summary judgment when one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim or...