Mason v. Geithner

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Writing for the Court: COLLEEN KOLLAR–KOTELLY
• Citation: Mason v. Geithner, 811 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. D.C. 2011)
• Decision Date: 12 September 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action Nos. 09–00462 (CKK),10–00683 (CKK).,10–00184 (CKK)
• Parties: Euel L. MASON, Donovan L. Benton, and Mable A. Gaines, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy F. GEITHNER, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Defendant.Euel L. Mason, Plaintiff, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Defendant.Mable A. Gaines, Plaintiff, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, Defendant.

811 F.Supp.2d 128

Euel L. MASON, Donovan L. Benton, and Mable A. Gaines, Plaintiffs,

v.Timothy F. GEITHNER, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Defendant.Euel L. Mason, Plaintiff,

v.Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Defendant.Mable A. Gaines, Plaintiff,

v.Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, Defendant.

Civil Action Nos. 09–00462 (CKK)

10–00184 (CKK)

10–00683 (CKK).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Sept. 12, 2011.

Richard L. Swick, Swick & Shapiro, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

David Cotter Rybicki, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR–KOTELLY, District Judge.

In the three above-captioned actions,¹ Plaintiffs Mable Gaines (“Gaines”), Euel Mason (“Mason”), and Donovan Benton (“Benton”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), each a former employee of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), bring suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–1 et seq. (“Title VII”) against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Secretary”). There are currently two motions before the Court: (1) the Secretary's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) the Secretary's Motion for Sanctions. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court shall grant the Secretary's Motion for Summary Judgment, deny the Secretary's Motion for Sanctions, and dismiss all three actions in their entirety.²

I. BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2003, Plaintiffs, along with other African American employees at the IRS, brought suit against the Secretary alleging that they had been discriminated against on the basis of race in connection with a variety of employment actions (the “2003 Litigation”). See Compl., Mason v. Snow, Civil Action No. 03–1730(CKK) (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2003). On May 1, 2006, the action was dismissed with prejudice when the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute (the “2006 Settlement”).³ See Stip. & Compromise Settlement & Dismissal With Prejudice, Mason v. Snow, Civil Action No. 03–1730(CKK) (D.D.C. May 1, 2006). In the actions now before the Court, Plaintiffs claim that they were retaliated against for their participation in the 2003 Litigation, including the 2006 Settlement. See Fourth Am. Compl. ( Civil Action No. 09–462) ¶¶ 21, 23, 25; Compl. (Civil Action No. 10–184) ¶ 12; Compl. (Civil Action No. 10–683) ¶ 12.

A. Factual Background Relating to Plaintiff Mable Gaines

In 1981, Mable Gaines began working at IRS Headquarters in Washington, D.C., as a clerk-typist. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 1; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 1. Around ten years later, she became an Inventory Management Specialist in the Distribution Division of the IRS's Media and Publications (“M & P”) Organization, a position that she held until her prolonged absence from work that began on December 21, 2004, and lasted until June 4, 2007. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 2; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 2.

1. Gaines's Physical Altercation with a Co–Worker

Gaines alleges that on the morning of December 21, 2004, a former co-worker entered her cubicle and—without saying a word—struck her on the right arm with such force that it could be heard across the room and caused a nerve in her shoulder to “pop.” Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 3; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 3; Dep. of Mable A. Gaines (“Gaines Dep.”) at 72–78. During this incident, the co-worker was laughing and told Gaines that she was just “playing.” Gaines Dep. at 78. Thereafter, Gaines—in what she describes as an attempt to “diffuse the situation”—responded by shoving the co-worker across the walkway and into an adjacent cubicle, “slamm[ing]” the co-worker against a file cabinet, and “cursing a whole lot.” Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 5; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 5; Gaines Dep. at 87, 90–91. Gaines has consistently claimed that the only reason the co-worker struck her was because Gaines refused to attend a breakfast outing earlier that morning. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 6; Pls.' Stmt. ¶¶ 5–6; Gaines Dep. at 106.

2. Gaines's Prolonged Absence from Work

Following the alleged assault, Gaines claimed that she was totally incapacitated as a result of the injuries she sustained and was unable to work. ⁴ Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 7; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 7. She did not return to work at the IRS until June 4, 2007—an absence of approximately two-and-a-half years. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 7; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 7.

In the weeks following her departure in December 2004, Gaines's supervisors maintained contact with her and they honored her request to be reassigned from the Distribution Division within the M & P Organization to the Tax Forms and Publications Division.⁵ Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 8; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 8. During her extended absence, Gaines's application to receive annual leave donations through the IRS's Leave Transfer Program, which allows IRS employees to transfer accrued annual leave to an approved recipient for a medical emergency, was approved and a memorandum soliciting donations was distributed on her behalf.⁶ Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 9; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 9; Def.'s Ex. A (Mem. from G. Plater to All Employees dated Apr. 19, 2005); Def.'s Ex. C (Frequently Asked Questions about the Leave Sharing Program) at 2.

On June 9, 2005, Gaines was examined by a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who concluded that she was able to return to work full-time so long as she was not required to lift more than ten pounds.⁷ Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 10; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 10. On August 19, 2005, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) within the Department of Labor (“DOL”) notified the IRS that Gaines was fit to return to work with the stated lifting limitation. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 11; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 11. On August 29, 2005, upon receiving the OWCP's notification, the IRS sent Gaines a letter offering her a position as a Tax Analyst in the Tax Forms and Publications Division of the M & P Organization, acknowledging her lifting limitation, and instructing her to report to work on September 6, 2005.⁸ Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 12; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 12; Gaines Dep. Ex. 7 (Ltr. to M. Gaines dated Aug. 29, 2005) at 1. The letter further stated that Gaines's failure to respond would be construed as a rejection of the offer and that her refusal to accept suitable employment could result in the termination of her workers' compensation benefits. Gaines Dep. Ex. 7 (Ltr. to M. Gaines dated Aug. 29, 2005) at 3. Nonetheless, Gaines failed to return the “Acceptance/Declination Statement” attached to the letter. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 13; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 13. Even so, Gaines was not disciplined when she failed to return to work on September 6, 2005, as she had been instructed. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 14; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 14.

On October 27, 2005, the DOL's OWCP contacted Gaines a second time, informing her in a letter that she had thirty days to either accept the Tax Analyst position that had been offered to her or to provide an explanation for her refusal. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 15; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 15. The letter again warned Gaines that her refusal to accept suitable work could result in the termination of her workers' compensation benefits. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 15; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 15.

After a considerable amount of time had elapsed,⁹ Gaines eventually submitted medical documentation showing that she was totally disabled in the period extending from April 25, 2007, to June 3, 2007, and was unable to work during that period. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 16; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 16; Def.'s Ex. B (Attending Physician's Report dated May 31, 2007) at 1. Gaines's period of total disability ended on June 3, 2007, and Gaines was deemed fit to resume light work the following day. Def.'s Ex. B (Attending Physician's Report dated May 31, 2007) at 1.

3. Gaines's Return to Work

On June 4, 2007, Gaines returned to work, serving as a Tax Analyst in the IRS's New Carrollton office located in Lanham, Maryland. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 17; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 17. Upon her return, Gaines's chain-of-command was as follows:

• First-line supervisor: Sidney Gardner (“Gardner”);

• Second-line supervisor: Ann Gelineau (“Gelineau”);

• Third-line supervisor: Stacy Becker (“Becker”)

• Fourth-line supervisor: Denise Fayne (“Fayne”) from June 2007, to September 2008; and Karen Becton–Johnson (“Becton–Johnson”) from September 2008, to September 2009.

Def.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 18–22; Pls.' Stmt. ¶¶ 18–22. Gaines's first- and second-line supervisors were located at the IRS's New Carrollton office, while her third- and fourth-line supervisors were located at IRS Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Def.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 18–22; Pls.' Stmt. ¶¶ 18–22.

The day of Gaines's return to work, she was taken on an office tour by her second-line supervisor, Gelineau. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 23; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 23. During the tour, Gelineau explained to Gaines that the entire office was conducting a week-long “clean building initiative,” in connection with which employees were encouraged to cull their files of excess paperwork, organize their workspace, and remove any extraneous boxes or office supplies. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 23; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 23. Gelineau instructed Gaines to clean and organize the area surrounding Gaines's workplace, which would include removing boxes, equipment, and files, an instruction that Gaines admits applied to everyone in the office. Gaines Dep. at 227–33, 235; Dep. of Ann Gelineau (“Gelineau Dep.”) at 89. Gaines admits that she did not inform Gelineau that she could not lift items of a certain weight, but speculates that Gelineau was otherwise aware of her lifting limitation. Gaines Dep. at 229–30. She also admits that she did not actually clean and organize the area and was never instructed to do so again, by Gelineau or anyone else. Id. at 233.

As a Tax Analyst within the Tax Forms and Publications Division, Gaines was expected to perform “plain language” review of tax forms, notices, and publications. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 25; Pls.' Stmt. ¶ 25. However, upon her return to work, Gaines did not immediately begin “plain language” review work and was instead assigned to work on a “front-line manager readiness course” with her...