Jones v. District of Columbia

Decision Date08 November 2004
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A.00-2140(RCL).,CIV.A.00-2140(RCL).
Citation346 F.Supp.2d 25
PartiesAngela JONES, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

John F. Karl, Jr., William P. Farley, Nancy J. Malir, McDonald & Karl, Jonathan E. Halperin, Regan Halperin & Long, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

William Burkett, Office of Corporation Counsel, D.C., Robert A. DeBerardinis, Jr., Corporation Counsel for D.C., Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LAMBERTH, District Judge.

This matter came before the Court on the defendants' Motion [48] for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the defendants' motion, the opposition thereto, the reply, the applicable law, and the entire record herein, the Court GRANTED the defendants' Motion [48] for Summary Judgment in an Order issued September 30, 2004. The Court's reasoning is set forth below.

BACKGROUND

This is an action brought by a corrections officer against the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Department of Corrections in particular, alleging gender-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended. Motions for summary judgment require the Court to review the facts and evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — here the plaintiff. Therefore, the following statement of facts is taken directly from the plaintiff's complaint, her opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff's statements of record filed with the Court.

The plaintiff, Angela Jones, was hired as a corrections officer by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections in September 1997. Jones was aware that the D.C. Department of Corrections has a published sexual harassment policy. See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. L (District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Department Order, "Sexual Harassment of Employees"); Pl.'s Opp. at 18 (asserting plaintiff's awareness of this policy). After her initial training, which included sexual harassment training, Jones was placed at the D.C. Department of Corrections' Occoquan Facility in Lorton, Virginia, where she was initially assigned to work with Sergeant Daryl Ellison. It is unclear from the record whether Ellison was Jones' supervisor. Although Ellison claimed, at various times, to have the authority to assign overtime and write evaluations of Jones' job performance, and Jones believed these claims at the time they were made, Jones later learned that he did not have the authority to do either of these things. See Pl.'s Opp., Stmt of Material Facts, at 3 ¶ 10, 5 ¶ 20; Pl.'s Opp. Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 50-51; Pl.'s Opp., Ex. B (Jones Decl.), at ¶ 3. In official terms, it appears that Ellison was not a supervisor at all but merely a more senior officer in the "zone" to which Jones was assigned. See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. H (Letter from Adrienne Poteat, D.C. Department of Corrections Deputy Director for Institutions, to Margaret Moore, Director, D.C. Department of Correction, June 22, 1998) ("[It] is my recommendation ... that Sergeant Ellison receive training regarding interpersonal relationships and effective communication rather than supervisory training since he is not a supervisor.") (emphasis added).

During the first two weeks of Jones' employment at Lorton, Ellison told Jones and one officer Cole "that if they wanted overtime, they needed to give him their telephone numbers." Pl.'s Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 ("Pl.'s Opp."). In addition, at times not specified, but presumably early in the period of Jones' employment at Lorton, Ellison commented on his "sexual prowess, stating `I am the man.'" Pl.'s Opp. at 5. "On two or three occasions, [Ellison] told [Jones] that he had dreams of having sex with her," and each time would "ask [Jones] whether she was trying to make his `dream come true.'" Id.

At other unspecified times, Ellison "made statements to Ms. Jones' co-workers that he was attracted to her and would like to have sex with her;" Pl.'s Opp., Stmt. of Material Facts, at 3 ¶ 14; made "remarks of a sexual nature to [Jones]," commented on "the size of [Jones'] breasts and the size of her bra," and asked "what color were [Jones'] bra and underwear and what `print' there was on her underwear." Pl.'s Opp., Stmt. of Material Facts, at 5 ¶ 21. Additionally, Jones learned that, again at various unspecified times during Jones' employment at Lorton, Ellison had entered into a wager with other male corrections officers concerning which of them would "score with [Jones] first," Pl.'s Opp., Stmt. of Material Facts, at 3 ¶ 13, and that Ellison told several inmates that Jones was a homosexual "because she would not have sex with [Ellison]," id. at 5 ¶ 23. Ellison would "on occasion, rub his crotch when he was alone with Ms. Jones." Id. at 8 ¶ 34. When Jones rebuffed Ellison's advances, he threatened her with poor evaluations and disciplinary action. Id. at 5 ¶ 22 (referring to Pl.'s Opp., Ex. B (Jones Decl.), at ¶ 9).

Approximately three months after Jones' began working at Lorton, in December 1997, Ellison unlocked the door to the facility's gym so that Jones could retrieve her umbrella. He followed her inside, closing and locking the door behind them and refusing to allow Jones to exit the gym for approximately five minutes. Pl.'s Opp., Stmt. of Material Fact, at 4 ¶¶ 15, 18. Ellison asked Jones to kiss him, explaining that he was attracted to her "and to the `red lipstick' she wore [and] that he thought she had `sexy lips' and was very `sexy [,]'" then he "grabbed her coat in a bear hug and physically began pulling Ms. Jones toward him" in an attempt to force Jones to kiss him. Pl.'s Opp., Stmt. of Material Facts, at 4 ¶¶ 15-16 (quoting Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep. at 42-43)). Jones explained, "[w]e actually tussled. We tussled. And I asked him to get off me." Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 43. Jones was detained in the gym until, upon hearing Jones' scream, one Corporal Grayton intervened and she was allowed to leave Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. C (Pl.'s Answers to Interrogs.), at 6. The Court will refer to this occurrence as the "gym incident" for the remainder of this Opinion.

In early January 1998, two weeks after the gym incident and after Jones had been reassigned to a location in which Ellison did not work, Ellison summoned Jones to the "ops office," claiming that he needed to speak with Jones about an "evaluation." Pl.'s Opp., Stmt. of Material Fact, at 4 ¶ 19; Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. C (Pl.'s Answers to Interrogs.), at 6; Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 50. When Jones arrived in the ops office, Ellison closed the door behind her and tried to kiss her. Id. at 5 ¶ 20. Ellison then explained, presumably after Jones rebuffed his advances, that there was no evaluation to discuss. Id. There was no physical contact on this occasion as there was in the gym incident. See Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 51-52 ("Q: Now ... during [the office] incident, did he again grab you? A: No..... Q: [T]here was no physical contact? A: No."). The Court will refer to this occurrence as the "office incident" for the remainder of this Opinion.

Another two weeks later, in mid-January 1998, Jones was in the mess hall when Ellison approached her, commenting, "I can tell you what size underwear you wear." Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. C (Pl.'s Answers to Interrogs.), at 7. At that time, Ellison also told Jones "you have big breast [sic] and I dream of licking them," Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. C (Pl.'s Answers to Interrogs.), at 7, and "brushed himself up behind Ms. Jones `with his whole body.'" Pl.'s Opp., Stmt. of Material Facts, at 6 ¶ 25 (quoting Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 61). The Court will refer to this occurrence as the "mess hall incident" for the remainder of this Opinion.

It is unclear precisely what actions Ms. Jones took between September 1997 and January 1998, the time period when these incidents were occurring. After the gym incident, Jones spoke to one Sergeant Armstrong about Ellison's behavior. See Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 44-45. Armstrong "told [Jones] that he would talk to Ellison because Ellison knew that he was wrong and that he shouldn't have done that." Id. at 45. Again, it is unclear from the record whether Armstrong was a supervisor, or whether he had any supervisory authority over Ellison. The plaintiff seems to have thought that Armstrong was in a position to take some effective action, however, as she "believe[d] [Armstrong] was the senior sergeant at the time...." Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 59.

After Jones rebuffed Ellison during the office incident, she "explained to him how he made me feel very uncomfortable and that he needed to cease his behavior, that I was married and I didn't want to get other people involved." Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 51. Additionally Jones again reported the incident to Sergeant Armstrong. It does not appear from the record that Jones took any action at all after the mess hall incident or reported it to anyone. Jones stated that no further incidents of sexual harassment occurred after the mess hall incident. See Pl.'s Opp., Ex. A (Jones Dep.), at 58.

Approximately two and a half months after the mess hall incident, on April 9, 1998, Jones lodged a sexual harassment complaint against Ellison with the Department of Corrections. That same day, the Department of Corrections issued cease and desist letters to both Jones and Ellison, which provided that "the complainant and the respondent [must] avoid unnecessary contact with each other while the allegations in question are being investigated." Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Exs. F, G (Mem. from Anita B. Michelow, Acting Warden of the Occoquan Facility, to Angela Jones, April 9, 1998;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Nurriddin v. Goldin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 17, 2005
    ...Pl. Opp'n, Ex. 106. However, not only is this claim not leveled against NASA or any supervisor of plaintiff, see Jones v. District of Columbia, 346 F.Supp.2d 25, 44 (D.D.C.2004) (noting the distinction between harassment by a co-worker and by a supervisor), but plaintiff has not established......
  • Creese v. Dist. of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • November 20, 2017
    ...of Corrections and EEOC complaints do not constitute adequate notice under § 12–309 as a matter of law," Jones v. District of Columbia , 346 F.Supp.2d 25, 39 (D.D.C. 2004), rev'd in part on other grounds , Jones v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corr. , 429 F.3d 276 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and nei......
  • Biodiversity Conservation v. U.S. Bureau of Land, Civ.A. 04-822(RJL).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • November 10, 2005
    ...and declines to discuss it further herein. See Hammond v. Norton, 370 F.Supp.2d 226, 259 (D.D.C.2005); Jones v. District of Columbia, 346 F.Supp.2d 25, 41 n. 2 (D.D.C.2004). 5. As noted previously, plaintiffs provided the BLM with public comments on May 9, 2002 and May 27, 2002. Pls.' SMF ¶......
  • Peary v. Goss
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 15, 2005
    ...that they will be subject to reassignments with greater and lesser degrees of risk throughout their careers. See Jones v. District of Columbia, 346 F.Supp.2d 25, 53 (D.D.C.2004) (noting that plaintiff "knew when she accepted her position as a corrections officer that she would be subject to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT