Murphy v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 18-1478 (JDB)
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-1478 (JDB) |
| Decision Date | 02 March 2022 |
| Citation | 590 F.Supp.3d 175 |
| Parties | Robert MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Donald Melvin Temple, Law Offices of Donald M. Temple, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Aaron Josiah Finkhousen, Office of the Attorney General for D.C., Civil Litigation Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Robert Murphy alleges that his former employer, the D.C. Department of Corrections (the "DOC")—and by extension, defendant District of Columbia—violated several different statutes by failing to accommodate his disabilities, interfering with his right to medical leave, and terminating his employment for impermissible reasons. See Mem. Op., July 15, 2019 [ECF No. 18] ("Mem. Op.") at 1. The District has moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See generally Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 44] ("Mot."). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the District's motion in part and deny it in part.
Murphy was an employee at the DOC from 1990 until July 2015. Am. Compl. for Damages [ECF No. 10] ("Am. Compl.") ¶ 4; see also Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [ECF No. 45] ("Resp. to Def.’s SUMF") ¶ 1.1 In April 2015, Murphy visited his doctor after suffering a heart attack. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 2. On April 2, Murphy's then fiancée, Ja'net Sheen, submitted a request for extended leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") to the DOC on Murphy's behalf. Id. ¶ 3. Murphy alleges that the DOC never responded to his April FMLA application even though he and Sheen asked about it several times. Mem. Op. at 2; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12–13. Critically, the District claims that Murphy and his doctor did not submit the necessary medical certification supporting this FMLA request until July 1, 2015. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of Mot. [ECF No. 44-1] ("Def.’s SUMF") ¶ 4. Murphy denies this assertion. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 4; Pl.’s Statement of Disputed Material Facts [ECF No. 45] ¶ 2.
Murphy returned to work after Sheen submitted his April FMLA application. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 6. On May 12, 2015, Murphy received a letter of counseling from his supervisor, Major Joseph Pettiford, because he acted inappropriately by using the terms "bitches and motherfuckers" when speaking with inmates. Id. ¶ 7; see also Letter of Counseling re: Inappropriate Behavior [ECF No. 44-9]. Murphy claims he did not direct those expletives at any particular individual but admits to using the language. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 8; Letter of Counseling re: Inappropriate Behavior at 1.
On June 11, 2015, corrections officer Angela Walker submitted an internal complaint about Murphy. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 9; see also Employee Report of Significant Incident/Extraordinary Circumstances [ECF No. 44-10] at 2. Walker reported that her supervisor—Murphy's subordinate—was disrespectful and ordered her to perform tasks in a manner contrary to her orders and training. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 10; Employee Report of Significant Incident/Extraordinary Circumstances at 1–2. Walker's report states that when she informed Murphy of the incident, he made inappropriate statements, including asking Walker whether she was "a dom or a femme," saying "Fuck the Deputy Warden," and telling her that "cussing and disrespect was the norm" and that she "would have to adapt to the environment." Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶¶ 11–16; Employee Report of Significant Incident/Extraordinary Circumstances at 3–4. Murphy admits to asking Walker whether she was "a dom or a femme." Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 17; Excerpts of Robert Murphy Dep. Tr. [ECF No. 44-12] at 77:7–17 ().
Later on June 11, Pettiford submitted a request to terminate Murphy. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 19; see also Request for Termination [ECF No. 44-2]. Pettiford's request for termination mentions the May 12 letter of counseling Murphy received regarding his language around inmates as well as the June 11 report filed by Walker. See Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶¶ 20–22; see also Request for Termination at 2 ( ). The DOC Department of Human Resources approved this request on June 18, Email from Human Resources [ECF No. 44-7], and an official letter of termination was issued on June 19, Termination Letter [ECF No. 44-8]; accord Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶¶ 23–24.
On the same day that Human Resources approved Pettiford's request to terminate Murphy, June 18, Murphy suffered another heart attack. Am. Compl. ¶ 14. On June 22, he again requested FMLA leave. Id. ¶ 15. On June 24, he was served with and signed his letter of termination. Termination Letter at 3; Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 25. Murphy's termination became effective on July 10, 2015. Termination Letter at 1.
Murphy claims that he was fired not for the reasons Pettiford specified in his request to terminate Murphy, but due to Murphy's relationship with and support of Sheen—Murphy's now wife. See Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Pl.’s Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. ("Opp'n") [ECF No. 45] at 7.2 Sheen is a former corrections officer who filed a complaint with the DOC in 2008 alleging that Pettiford harassed her. Excerpts of Ja'net Sheen Dep. Tr. [ECF No. 44-13] 16:14–17:10. More importantly for this lawsuit's purposes, Sheen was a witness in Brokenborough v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 13-1757, a separate sexual harassment suit against the District, the DOC's Director, and Pettiford that was ongoing at the time Pettiford recommended Murphy's termination. Ex. 1 [ECF No. 45-1] ("Brokenborough Compl.") ¶¶ 138–42 (). Sheen was deposed in that case on August 20, 2015. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶¶ 26–27; see Notice of Deposition [ECF 44-14].
Murphy filed a "Charge of Discrimination" with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and the D.C. Office of Human Rights ("OHR") on August 13, 2015, alleging that the District committed a variety of unlawful discriminatory acts. Mem. Op. at 3; see also Charge of Discrimination [ECF No. 12-1] at 1. OHR issued a probable cause determination, finding probable cause for some, but not all, of Murphy's claims. Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 29; Letter of Determination [ECF No. 44-11]. One of the claims before OHR was whether the District terminated Murphy in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"). Resp. to Def.’s SUMF ¶ 30; Charge of Discrimination at 1.
Murphy initiated litigation against the District in this Court in June 2018. See generally Compl. for Damages [ECF No. 1]. Murphy later filed an amended complaint, Count I of which alleges that the District violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by failing to accommodate his April and June requests for medical leave and by terminating him in retaliation for making those requests. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24–28. Counts II and III allege that the same conduct violated the federal FMLA and D.C.’s version of the FMLA ("DCFMLA"). See id. ¶¶ 30–36. Counts IV and V allege that the District violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the DCHRA by terminating Murphy in retaliation for supporting his wife's participation in the sexual harassment lawsuit against Pettiford. Id. ¶¶ 38–46; see also Mem. Op. 3–4 ().
The District moved to partially dismiss Murphy's amended complaint in December 2018. See generally Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. in Part [ECF No. 12]. The Court granted the District's motion in part and denied it in part in July 2019. Order, July 15, 2019 [ECF No. 17] at 1. Specifically, the Court dismissed Count I's June failure-to-accommodate claim and both the April and June retaliation claims under the ADA, Count II's June interference claim under the FMLA, and Count III's June interference and retaliation claims under the DCFMLA. Id.; see also Mem. Op. at 5–17 ( rationale). After the Court's Order, the remaining claims are as follows: a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA for not responding to the April FMLA request (Count I); an interference claim and a retaliation claim under the FMLA for not responding to the April FMLA request and then terminating Murphy for making that request (Count II); an interference claim under the DCFMLA for not responding to the April FMLA request (Count III); and retaliation claims under Title VII and the DCHRA (Counts IV and V) for terminating Murphy due to his support of Sheen's participation in the lawsuit against Pettiford, the DOC's Director, and the District. Opp'n at 2–3.
The District has moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims. See Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. [ECF No. 44] ("Mem in Supp. of Mot.") at 1. The District argues that Murphy's failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA and interference claims under the FMLA and DCFMLA fail because his April FMLA application was incomplete. Id. The District also claims that it is entitled to summary judgment on Murphy's retaliation claims under the FMLA, Title VII, and the DCHRA because the District terminated Murphy for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Id. The District further contends that Murphy's retaliation claims under Title VII and the DCHRA fail because Sheen did not participate in the deposition against Pettiford until after Pettiford recommended Murphy's termination. Id. at 10. Finally, the District states that Murphy's DCHRA claim is barred because he pursued this...
To continue reading
Request your trial