Murphy v. Mattis
| Decision Date | 27 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2:14-cv-00400-JAW |
| Parties | MICHAEL S. MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. JAMES N. MATTIS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
An employee of the Defense Logistics Agency at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard brings suit against the Secretary of Defense, alleging that the Secretary discriminated against him on the basis of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and his deafness in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The employee asserts that the Secretary denied him promotions on account of his age and deafness and continuously denied his reasonable accommodation requests.
Before the Court is the Secretary's motion for partial summary judgment. The Secretary seeks judgment as a matter of law on whether the scope of the employee's discrimination claims is limited to a forty-five day period prior to his initial contact with an EEO counselor. Further, the Secretary moves for summary judgment on the employee's failure to promote claims.
The Court concludes that the limitations periods contained in the Rehabilitation Act and the ADEA limit the employee's claims to events that occurred within the forty-five day period prior to his contact with the EEO counselor and that neither equitable exceptions nor federal regulations expand the scope of the employee's claims. Further, the Court concludes that the Secretary is entitled to summary judgment on the employee's failure to promote claims because the human resources representative who rejected the employee's promotion application was unaware of the employee's age or disability. The employee's failure to accommodate claim remains for trial.
On October 10, 2014, Michael Murphy brought suit against the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus. Compl. and Demand for Trial by Jury (ECF No. 1). On January 20, 2015, Secretary Mabus filed a motion to dismiss.1 Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss the Compl. (ECF No. 11). Although the pleadings have been amended several times, for purposes of this motion, the operative pleading is Mr. Murphy's Second Amended Complaint against Secretary of Defense James Mattis, filed on May 25, 2016. SecondAm. Compl. (ECF No. 56). The Secretary answered the Second Amended Complaint the same day it was filed. Def.'s Answer to Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 57).
On May 6, 2016, the Secretary filed a notice of intent to move for partial summary judgment. Notice of Intent to Move for Summ. J. (ECF No. 46). On May 24, 2016, the Court held a Local Rule 56 pre-filing conference. Min. Entry (ECF No. 53).
The parties subsequently agreed to eight stipulated facts. Redacted Documents, Attach. 2, Stipulation and J.R. Solely for Purposes of Summ. J. (ECF No. 102) (Stip.). On August 10, 2016, the Secretary filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a statement of undisputed material facts. Redacted Documents, Attach. 3, Def.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 102) (Def.'s Mot.); Redacted Documents, Attach. 4, Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 102) (DSMF). On October 5, 2016, Mr. Murphy filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Mr. Murphy's motion, a responsive statement of material facts, and an additional set of material facts. Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 73) (Pl.'s Opp'n); Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Pl.'s Statement of Additional Material Facts at 1-12 (ECF No. 74) (PRDSMF); Id. at 12-42 (PSAMF). On October 26, 2016, the Secretary filed a reply memorandum and a reply statement of facts. Def.'s Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 96) (Def.'s Reply); Reply Statement ofMaterial Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56(D) and 56(E) Responses (ECF No. 97) (DRPSAMF).2
The Court recounts the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Murphy consistent with record support. Alfano v. Lynch, 847 F.3d 71, 74 (1st Cir. 2017). Although the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in Mr. Murphy's favor, the Court affords no evidentiary weight to "conclusory allegations, empty rhetoric, unsupported speculation, or evidence which, in the aggregate, is less than significantly probative." Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 637 F.3d 53, 56 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rogan v. City of Boston, 267 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 2001)).
Michael S. Murphy was born in 1943. Stip. ¶ 1. He became profoundly deaf at seven months old as a result of illness. Stip. ¶ 2; PSAMF ¶ 7; DRPSAMF ¶ 7. His deafness is a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities such that he is an individual with a disability. Stip. ¶ 3; PSAMF ¶¶ 6, 125; DRPSAMF ¶¶ 6, 125.
Mr. Murphy communicates in American Sign Language (ASL) as his first language. Stip. ¶ 2. He had late access to language and only began formal language learning in ASL at age eight, which is well after the window for which easyacquisition of language can occur. PSAMF ¶ 8; DRPSAMF ¶ 8. Not every deaf person who communicates with ASL is able to read English text; rather, some deaf individuals only see characters because their language is signing. PSAMF ¶ 13; DRPSAMF ¶ 13. Mr. Murphy's own reading, writing, and vocabulary skills in English are quite limited.3 DSMF ¶ 3; PRDSMF ¶ 3. His reading level does notconstitute the true reading process; instead, he functions with a word recognition process.4 PSAMF ¶ 10; DRPSAMF ¶ 10.
Mr. Murphy struggles with closed captioning and texting in English.5 PSAMF ¶ 14; DRPSAMF ¶ 14. Mr. Murphy can compose and read very basic text messageson his cellphone, compose and read very basic email messages, and compose and read very basic hand-written or typed correspondence without the aid of a friend, co-worker, or an interpreter; in this context, "very basic" means extremely simplistic, consisting of one or two words. DSMF ¶ 4, PRDSMF ¶ 4.6,7 However, when Mr.Murphy wants to send or read an email, he generally gets help from a co-worker to correct his English or explain words he does not understand. DSMF ¶ 4; PRDSMF ¶ 4. Mr. Murphy prefers that all communications with him be in ASL, because "if it's not in ASL, it's not completely coming to me." PSAMF ¶ 15; DRPSAMF ¶ 15 .
From approximately 1979 until June 5, 2010, Mr. Murphy was employed by the Department of the Navy (Navy) as a civilian Materials Handler, WG-06, Step 5, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. Stip. ¶ 4. On June 6, 2010, Mr. Murphy's employment was transferred to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) pursuant to the Department of Defense's base realignment and closure program. Stip. ¶ 5. Since June 6, 2010, Mr. Murphy has been employed by the DLA as a Materials Handler, WG-06, Step 5, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.8 DSMF ¶ 12; PRDSMF ¶ 12. Mr. Murphy is unsure of when his position transferred from the Navy to the DLA. DSMF ¶ 12; PRDSMF ¶ 12. With respect to Mr. Murphy's employmentwith the Navy from 1979-2010, many of the individuals in Mr. Murphy's prior chain of command have retired or are now deceased.9 DSMF ¶¶ 8-9; PRDSMF ¶¶ 8-9.
The DLA is a combat support agency of the Department of Defense. DSMF ¶ 13; PRDSMF ¶ 13. It is distinct from the Navy, which is a separate agency component of the Department of Defense headed by the Secretary of the Navy.10 DSMF ¶ 13; PRDSMF ¶ 13. The Defendant, James Mattis, is the Secretary of Defense and is ultimately responsible for the oversight of the DLA. DSMF ¶ 14; PRDSMF ¶ 14.
The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office that services Navy employees at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is located on-site at the Shipyard. DSMF ¶ 15; PRDSMF ¶ 15. DLA employees who work at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, such as Mr. Murphy, are serviced by a separate DLA EEO office located in Columbus, Ohio.11 DSMF ¶ 16; PRDSMF ¶ 16. There was some confusion among DLA employees and management about which EEO office serviced DLA employees.DSMF ¶ 16; PRDSMF ¶ 16; PSAMF ¶ 154; DRPSAMF ¶ 154. The DLA EEO expects that the Navy EEO would apprise them of any DLA complaints that were brought to the Navy's office accidently. PSAMF ¶ 155; DRPSAMF ¶ 155.
In 2010, following his transfer to the DLA, Mr. Murphy participated in a video conference with Paul Gambrell, a DLA EEO Disability Program Manager. Decl. of Paul Allen Gambrell ¶¶ 5-7 (ECF No. 68). An ASL interpreter translated the video conference. Id.; DSMF ¶ 17; PRDSMF ¶ 17. During the video conference, Mr. Gambrell told Mr. Murphy that the DLA EEO office located in Columbus, Ohio, would provide EEO services to him as a DLA employee, and that if he had any concerns or issues with the DLA, EEO contacts in the Ohio office would provide him with assistance.12 DSMF ¶ 18; PRDSMF ¶ 18. However, following the video conference, Mr. Murphy did not fully understand that the DLA EEO office in Ohio was his designated EEO office. See Dep. of Sheri Kelley at 93:23-10 (ECF No. 76) (Kelley Dep.).
From the date of his transfer to the DLA until 2013, Mr. Murphy earned an hourly salary of $21.25. DSMF ¶¶ 19-22; PRDSMF ¶¶ 19-22. Mr. Murphy received a raise in 2013 and again in 2014, increasing his hourly salary to $21.47 and $21.69, respectively. DSMF ¶¶ 23-24; PRDSMF ¶¶ 23-24. From the date of his transfer to the DLA through 2015, Mr. Murphy's hourly wage was equal to or greater than that paid to his fellow Materials Handler colleagues. DSMF ¶¶ 19-25; PRDSMF ¶¶ 19-25. Mr. Murphy testified that his younger Materials Handler co-workers are paid less than he is.13 DSMF ¶ 26; PRDSMF ¶ 26. However, Mr. Murphy has observed his supervisors encourage his...
To continue reading
Request your trial