Joyner-Pettway v. Cvent, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 February 2017
• Docket Number: 1:16-cv-892 (LMB/TCB)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: STACIE K. JOYNER-PETTWAY, Plaintiff v. CVENT, INC., Defendant.

STACIE K. JOYNER-PETTWAY, Plaintiff v. CVENT, INC., Defendant.

1:16-cv-892 (LMB/TCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

February 7, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Stacie K. Joyner-Pettway ("Joyner-Pettway" or "plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint alleging that her former employer, Cvent, Inc. ("Cvent" or "defendant") engaged in discrimination on the basis of race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when it fired her on June 1, 2015. On January 10, 2017, defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") complete with a notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that the "Court could dismiss this action on the basis of Cvent's papers if [plaintiff did] not file a response" by February 3, 2017. As of February 6, 2017, plaintiff has not filed a response to defendant's Motion, nor has plaintiff filed a witness or exhibit list as required by this Court's scheduling order entered on August 25, 2016. Accordingly, the facts presented by defendant in its Motion and the attached exhibits are deemed admitted. On the basis of those facts, and for the reasons that follow, defendant's Motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a woman who is of black and Native American heritage. Def. Ex. 2 at 22:15-16. Cvent, a firm that designs software for event planners, hired plaintiff as a paralegal in its legal department on January 22, 2013. Def. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SUMF"), [Dkt. 26] at ¶ 1-4. She was Cvent's only paralegal. Id. at ¶ 5. Her duties included maintaining corporate records and filing forms with various state and federal agencies. Id. at ¶ 6.

During the period relevant to this lawsuit, plaintiff's direct supervisor was Lawrence Samuelson ("Samuelson"), Cvent's general counsel. Id. at ¶ 8. Every year, Samuelson prepared a performance review of plaintiff's work. Id. at ¶ 9. His first review was in the latter part of 2013, and was generally positive but also included some constructive feedback, encouraging plaintiff to "(1) Own projects; (2) Initiate projects based on your own analysis; [and] (3) Be dogmatic about deadlines." Id. at ¶ 10 (internal quotation marks omitted). His 2014 review was also positive, with the primary criticism being that plaintiff should "[c]ontinue to focus on detail and work[] towards a perfect work product[.]" Id. at ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no evidence that plaintiff was ever disciplined before her termination.

Plaintiff received the assignment that ultimately resulted in her termination on Friday, May 22, 2015. Id. at ¶ 16. Samuelson emailed plaintiff to let her know that Cvent would need to file "various financial benchmark surveys" with the United States Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis ("BEA"). Id. According to that email, plaintiff was to be the "team lead" for the BEA filing. Id. At her deposition, plaintiff agreed that it was her job "to make sure the filing got done on time." Def. Ex. 2 at 144:4-6.

Samuelson told plaintiff that the filing was due to the BEA by Friday, May 29, 2015, and that "[p]enalties for not making the filing can be up to $25,000 per violation." Def. SUMF at ¶¶ 16-18; Def. Ex. 5. Plaintiff received all the information required for the filing from the finance department by the close of business on Wednesday, May 27, 2015. Def. SUMF at ¶ 19.That same day, plaintiff assured Samuelson that she would review the forms and begin filing them electronically by the next morning. Id.

On the afternoon of Thursday, May 28, 2015, plaintiff learned that Cvent was not permitted to file electronically as a first-time filer with the BEA. Id. at ¶ 21. The same day, one of Cvent's attorneys asked plaintiff if anyone needed to sign the BEA forms. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff looked at the forms, but did not notice the required signature block on the first page. Id. It was not until later that evening that plaintiff realized a signature would be required by Peter Childs ("Childs"), Cvent's Chief Financial Officer. Id. at ¶ 22, 27.

That evening, at 9:04 p.m., Samuelson emailed plaintiff to ask if she was going to file the forms with the BEA the next morning. Id. at 24. She replied that she was planning to file the paper copy the next day by hand delivery. Id. at ¶ 25. At 9:42 a.m. the next morning, Friday, May 29, Samuelson asked again if the filing was going to get done that day. Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff replied a few minutes later that she would complete the filing as soon as Childs could sign it, but that Childs was in a meeting. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff was not able to give the forms to Childs until 11:00 a.m., which was the first time that Childs learned about them. Id. at ¶ 28. Childs asked to review the forms before he signed them. Id. ¶ 29. He did not return them to plaintiff until that afternoon. Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff never asked Samuelson or anyone else at Cvent for help in getting Childs to sign the forms more expeditiously. Id. at ¶ 38.

When plaintiff received the signed forms from Childs, she made arrangements for the forms to be picked up by a courier and hand-delivered to the BEA. Id. at ¶ 31. At 3:00 p.m., before the courier arrived, plaintiff left the office because she was leaving town that evening and did not wish to miss her flight. Id. at ¶ 32. At 3:42 p.m., Samuelson emailed plaintiff asking forconfirmation that the BEA filing had been submitted. Id. at ¶ 33. Plaintiff replied at 3:50 p.m., telling Samuelson that the courier had retrieved the forms but had not yet confirmed delivery. Id.

By the time the courier arrived at the BEA, it had stopped accepting deliveries for the day. Id. at ¶ 34. Accordingly, the forms were not filed on Friday, May 29, 2016. Id. at ¶ 35. Plaintiff emailed Samuelson at 5:10 p.m. to report the failed delivery. Def. Ex. 9. She wrote that she

[g]ot a call from the courier that no one answered the door where he was directed by the guard to drop off hand deliveries. After going back and forth I was told the drop off closed at 4. I suspected this could be the case and communicated this to the courier when I arranged for the pick-up. The courier stated that he arrived shortly before 4. So I have directed the courier to return the package to Cvent and I have spoken with Brittany who will prepare a FedEx package so that it is at least sent with a May 29 shipment date. I sent an e-mail to the BEA yesterday and called inquiring if postmark dates are acceptable. The number I have for BEA does not provide option [sic] to speak with a live person. Both means of communication fell on deaf ears. I have asked the courier to provide me with documentation evidencing his arrival before 4 in case we need to appeal any late penalty [assessed] by the BEA. He said he can get me something. I will also reach out again to the BEA on this matter.

Id.

At 8:49 p.m., Samuelson replied:

This is very disappointing. I don't understand how this could have gotten so messed up. You had the relevant info on Tuesday.

From a practical standpoint, [d]o we need to deliver a cover note explaining our situation? What are the potential penalties for making a late filing?

This is a serious mistake on execution.

Def. Ex. 10.

Plaintiff received that email as she was boarding her plane that evening. Def. SUMF at ¶ 42. She was "shocked, dazed, and infuriated'' by Samuelson's email. Id. at ¶ 43 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although she typed a response on the airplane, she decided not to send it because it "was not the message [she] should have probably sent at that time." Def. Ex. 2 at 122:16-18. She "massaged over that message all weekend long," thinking about how torespond, in part because she was trying to figure out the answer to the question about potential penalties. Id. at 122:22-123:5. She also felt that "anything [she] sent him was going to make matters worse." Id. at 123:14-15.

Plaintiff did not reply to Samuelson until 1:14 a.m. on Monday, June 1, 2015. Def. SUMF at ¶ 45. In her response, she wrote:

I can understand your concern; however, it was not until yesterday . . . when it was determined we could not file electronically[.] At this time I called and e-mailed BEA (my earlier e-mail . . . was promptly answered so I expected the same timely response) to inquire if paper filings needed to be received by 5/29 or just sent/postmarked. I never received a reply[.] [An attorney] did inquire Thur[sday] afternoon if the forms required signature. I looked over the forms but did not pick up on the sig[nature] block as it was quite small. When doing a final review of the forms on Thursday evening I noticed [one of the forms] required [a] signature[.] I immediately put wheels in motion to get [Child's] signature as soon as I arrived at the office around 8:30AM on Fri[day] and printed the forms. He was in a meeting but I was able to get his attention at some point. To my surprise, he was not aware of the forms so I respected his decision that he needed to look over the forms before signing. I mentioned the plan to send the forms today (Fri[day]) but there was a misunderstanding. He seemed to think it was just a matter of getting them postmarked. Of course, I take responsibility for the miscommunication. As time ticked away, I looked to track down [Childs] and even sent him an e-mail. In the meantime, I prepared a cover letter and copy set for the courier to have date-stamped at the time of delivery. When I contacted the courier shortly after 2 when [Childs] signed I expressed I was concerned that the [BEA] may close or at least stop accepting deliveries at 4 or 4:30[.] The courier service gave me an ETA of 30 min. for pick-up. When no one arrived within the timeframe I called for status. The package was picked up a little after 3. I knew delivery would be tight at this time. Shortly after 4, the courier called to let me know no one answered the door the guard

...