Lamb v. Modly
| Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-03469-PX |
| Parties | JERRY GORALSKI LAMB, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS MODLY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This action stems from Plaintiff Jerry Goralski Lamb's ("Lamb's") previous employment at the Department of the Navy ("Navy"). ECF No. 42. Lamb has sought leave to file his Second Amended Complaint and moves to seal certain administrative records. ECF Nos. 42 & 43. Defendants, the United States, Secretary of Navy Thomas Modly, Terrence O'Connell, and Richard Paquette ("Paquette") (collectively "the Defendants"), have not filed a response opposing Lamb's motion to seal. However, they do oppose Lamb's latest amendment to the complaint and move for dismissal or alternatively for summary judgment on all claims. ECF Nos. 37 & 60. The motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment (ECF No. 37); and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to seal (ECF No. 43).1
Lamb, proceeding pro se, is an African American male, over the age of forty, who is diagnosed with anxiety, depression, sleep apnea, insomnia, severe allergies, chronic knee pain, and herniated disks. ECF No. 42 ¶ 25; ECF No. 37-3 at 2. He served as a Contract Specialist for a division of the Navy from February 2009 to August 2015. ECF No. 42 ¶¶ 27-28.
This is not Lamb's first lawsuit. For years, Lamb has litigated the alleged discrimination and retaliation he had suffered while employed with the Navy. He has pursued labyrinthine overlapping administrative and civil actions that are now before this Court for a second time. Because the procedural posture of these actions is central to the resolution of the Defendants' motion, the Court summarizes each below.
In 2013, Lamb reported to supervisor Michelle Webb ("Webb"). Id. ¶ 34. On many occasions, Lamb requested that he receive a promotion, which Webb denied each time. Id. ¶¶ 35, 38-39. In response, Lamb filed two complaints in October and November 2013 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), averring that Webb's refusal to promote him amounted to discrimination. Id. ¶¶ 38-39, 44.
While the 2013 EEOC Complaints were pending, coworker Kerry Harding ("Harding") emailed Lamb and accused him of being disinterested and uncooperative on their shared work assignments. Id. ¶ 36. Lamb suspected that Webb had told Harding to send this email so to provide cover for Webb's refusal to promote him. Id. ¶¶ 37-39. Then, on June 10, 2014, Webb issued Lamb a reprimand letter for refusing to sign a non-disclosure agreement pertaining to a Navy contract to which Lamb had been assigned. Id. ¶¶ 40-41.
Lamb viewed the email and reprimand letter as "part of a retaliatory campaign to punish" him from his prior protected activity. Id. ¶ 43. Accordingly, he filed another EEOC Complaint on June 30, 2014, asserting race, gender, and age discrimination and reprisal for having previously filed an EEOC Complaint.2 Id. ¶ 44; see also ECF No. 53, Ex. 1 at 000038; ECF No. 37-4 at 3.
Thereafter, Lamb avers that he suffered additional retaliation on account of his EEOC filings. First, Webb denied his request to telework from July 23 through August 29, 2014, claiming she had not received the necessary medical documentation to support the request. ECF No. 42 ¶ 45. Webb next "retaliated" against Lamb by changing his work status to "inactive." Id. ¶ 46. According to Lamb, being placed on "inactive" status affected his ability to meet his target number of contract procurements for that performance cycle. Id.
Additionally, the Navy, through Kelley Bean ("Bean"), renewed the request that Lamb undergo a psychological evaluation on account of his threatening comments he had supposedly directed at Webb in October 2013. Id. ¶¶ 47, 49. Webb also marked Lamb "Absent Without Leave" ("AWOL") on August 21, 2014 because he left work two hours early to meet with an Employee Assistance Program counselor, even though Webb previously had told Lamb that he need not obtain advance permission to leave for such counseling. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. Lastly, in September 2014, Lamb was suspended for one day for failing to provide required medical documentation clearing him to work before he attended a training class. Id. ¶¶ 53, 57. Lamb suggests the suspension was pretextual because Webb never told Lamb that he needed such medical documentation. Id. ¶ 56.
Based on these events, Lamb filed another EEOC complaint on October 2, 2014, which was then consolidated with the June 2014 EEOC Complaint.3 Id. ¶ 17; ECF No. 53, Ex. 1 at 000030-000044; ECF No. 37-2 (). The 2014 EEOC Complaint ultimately included allegations of race, national origin, sex, age, and religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. ECF No. 37-3 at 1-4.
The Navy investigated the 2014 EEOC Complaint and, in March of 2015, issued its first Report of Investigation ("ROI") totaling 2,383 pages with exhibits. ECF No. 37-2; ECF No. 53, Ex. 1. The ROI notified Lamb of his right to request a final decision on the current record or to proceed to a hearing before an administrative judge ("AJ"). ECF No. 37-2. Lamb chose the latter. ECF No. 37-4 at 3.
Once before the AJ, the Navy moved for a decision without a hearing, which Lamb opposed. ECF No. 37-3 at 2. But Lamb never appeared for the scheduled hearing or the follow-up status conference. ECF No. 37-1 at 8. As a result, the AJ granted the Navy's motion and issued a written decision on January 8, 2018. Id.; ECF No. 37-3 at 2, 43.
The Navy adopted the AJ's findings and issued its final agency decision on January 12, 2018. ECF No. 37-4. The Navy concluded that Lamb had not established any of his claims and notified him that that he could either appeal the decision to the EEOC or file a civil action in federal court. Id. at 4-5. Lamb chose to appeal the decision to the EEOC. ECF No. 37-5. On August 30, 2019, the EEOC affirmed the decision and notified Lamb that he could file a civil suit in federal court within 90 days of receiving the decision. Id. at 11-12. Lamb filed this action on December 4, 2019. ECF No. 1.
As the 2014 EEOC Complaint wound its way through the administrative process, Lamb pursued separate EEOC claims arising from events that took place in 2015. ECF No. 37-6. Specifically, in January 2015, Lamb was assigned to work under a new supervisor, Donna Bibee ("Bibee"). ECF No. 42 ¶ 62. On January 25, 2015, Lamb made certain requests to Bibee for various accommodations, including a lateral transfer to a different division, ergonomic seating, and permission to move his desk to the first floor and away from air vents. Id. ¶¶ 64, 66. According to Lamb, Bibee denied these requests. Id. ¶ 66.
In February 2015, Lamb informed Bibee that he needed to take leave to treat his herniated disks, anxiety, and depression. Id. ¶ 65. Lamb steadfastly maintains that he submitted the necessary medical documentation to support the request. Id. ¶¶ 65-66. While this request was pending, Bibee gave Lamb a poor performance review and then "shared it with all employees having access to that system of records." Id. ¶ 67.
Then, on March 6, 2015, Lamb and his team were reassigned to another supervisor, Terrence O'Connell ("O'Connell"). Id. ¶ 68. Three days later, Lamb began his medical leave. Id. ¶ 69. On March 14, 2015, while still on leave, Lamb received an email from O'Connell, conveying concerns about whether Lamb had enough sick leave time to cover the planned time off. Id. ¶ 72. O'Connell also informed Lamb that he needed to submit medical documentation supporting this leave when he returned to work on March 26, 2015. Id.
Shortly before his scheduled return, Lamb was in a car accident and injured his spine such that he had to be hospitalized. Id. ¶ 75. Lamb submitted a Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") request for leave taken in March 2015. Id. ¶ 79. O'Connell again reminded Lamb to provide supporting medical documentation. Id. ¶ 77. While Lamb insists that he sent thisdocumentation via Federal Express on April 8, 2015, O'Connell never received the records and so denied the FMLA request on April 16. Id. ¶¶ 80-81.
In late April, Lamb asked O'Connell if he could use annual leave time to cover his absence. Id. ¶ 84. O'Connell denied Lamb's request, noting he could no longer "be spared from work." Id. After Lamb did not return to work, on or about May 14, 2015, O'Connell marked him as AWOL for a total of 43 days and petitioned for his removal. Id. ¶¶ 86, 91. Lamb was officially terminated on August 17, 2015. Id. ¶ 28.
Before his termination became effective, Lamb filed a formal EEOC Complaint on July 27, 2015.4 ECF No. 53, Ex. 2 at 000020. In it, Lamb averred that Bibee and O'Connell's repeated denials of his accommodation requests from February to April 2015 amounted to race, national origin, age, religious, and disability discrimination, retaliation, and also created a hostile work environment. Id. at 000021-000024; see also ECF No. 37-7. The Navy investigated the 2015 EEOC Complaint and, in January 2016, issued another ROI totaling 1,141 pages. ECF No. 37-6.
After receiving the ROI, Lamb requested a hearing in March of 2016. ECF No. 37-7 at 4. But Lamb, once again, failed to post. He canceled pre-arranged depositions and then failed to appear for his own deposition. ECF No. 37-1 at 9. Because Lamb remained "non-compliant" with the AJ's discovery related orders, the AJ ultimately remanded the complaint to the Navy for a decision in October 2017. ECF No. 37-7 at 4.
The Navy issued a final decision on December 1, 2017, finding Lamb had failed to establish his claims. Id. at 35. Lamb again was notified of his right to either appeal to the EEOC or file a civil action. Id...
To continue reading
Request your trial