Nurriddin v. Bolden

• Decision Date: 25 April 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 04–2052 JDB
• Citation: 40 F.Supp.3d 104
• Parties: Ahmad B. Nurriddin, Plaintiff, v. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

40 F.Supp.3d 104

Ahmad B. Nurriddin, Plaintiff

v.Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 04–2052 JDB

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed April 25, 2014

Jeffrey Walter Mikoni, Clearspire Law Co., PLLC, Washington, DC, Joshua David Rogaczewski, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Andrea Mcbarnette, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge

Plaintiff Ahmad Nurriddin brought this suit against the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), Nurriddin's former employer. In an earlier opinion, the Court dismissed Nurriddin's claims of disability discrimination, conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, and hostile work environment. See Dec. 4, 2009 Mem. Op. [ECF No. 97] & Order [ECF No. 98]. His remaining claims are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging discrimination based upon his race (African–American), sex (male), and religion (Muslim), as well as retaliation for protected activity. Now before the Court are [183] Nurriddin's motion for partial summary judgment (primarily regarding damages) and [185][190] NASA's motion for summary judgment (on liability). Upon careful consideration of the motions and the parties' memoranda, the applicable law, and the entire record, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Nurriddin's motion and will grant NASA's motion.

BACKGROUND

This suit is Nurriddin's second action against NASA. His first suit was filed in 1999, alleging that certain employment actions that occurred between 1991 and 1996 constituted a hostile work environment and were motivated by discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and religion, and by retaliation for his engagement in protected activity. See Nurriddin v. Goldin, 382 F.Supp.2d 79 (D.D.C.2005) (“Nurriddin I ”). On August 17, 2005, this Court entered summary judgment for NASA on all claims. See id. The D.C. Circuit affirmed in all respects. See Nurriddin v. Griffin, 222 Fed.Appx. 5 (D.C.Cir.2007). The events underlying the current suit began where Nurriddin I left off and chronicle the continuation of Nurriddin's tumultuous relationship with his supervisors at NASA. See 2d Am. Compl. [ECF No. 49] ¶¶ 56–140. The relevant facts recounted below are largely undisputed¹ and relate to Nurriddin's remaining claims, which are based on the following alleged events in his employment history: (1) denial of a noncompetitive increase in grade from GS–13 to GS–14 in 1998; (2) diminished performance award in 1997–1998; (3) denial of a performance award in 1998–1999; (4) denial of two travel requests in 1998; (5) designation as “absent without leave” (“AWOL”) for 59 days in 2000; (6) denial of donated leave after 2000; (7) denial of a timely “Within Grade Increase” (“WGI”) around 2000–2001; and (8) termination in 2004.

In 1996, Nurriddin was a federal employee at level GS–12 in NASA's Education Division. Def.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 1–2, 6. His “first-level supervisor” was Dr. Malcolm Phelps and his “alternate first-level supervisor” was Sherri McGee.Id. ¶7; 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 11. Nurriddin's “second-level supervisor” was Frank Owens. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 10. Annual performance evaluations of Nurriddin were conducted each summer and covered his performance for the preceding 12 months. See, e.g., Def.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 8, 10. For the 1995–1996 evaluation period, he received a performance rating of “Outstanding” and an $800 performance award for that rating. 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54–55. At the time, NASA used a five-level scale in which “Outstanding” was the highest possible rating. Id. ; Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 8.

Nurriddin filed two EEO complaints alleging disparate treatment in February 1995 and April 1997 that were addressed in Nurriddin I . See 382 F.Supp.2d at 87–88. He filed his third EEO complaint in June 1997, naming Owens and McGee as “responsible management officials,” and alleging continued disparate treatment based upon his race, sex, and religion, and in reprisal for his prior EEO activity. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 56; Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 190] (“Def.'s MSJ”), Nurriddin's List of His Complaints [ECF No. 187–2] (“Pl.'s List”) ¶ 7C. Nurriddin then filed another formal complaint in December 1997, naming Owens, McGee, and Phelps. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 24; Pl.'s List ¶ 7D. This and the June 1997 complaint were followed by seven additional EEO complaints in the years to come. Pl.'s List ¶¶ 7E–8.

In November 1997, Nurriddin received a long-sought noncompetitive promotion to GS13. 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 49; Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 2. In April 1998, he filed another formal complaint, naming Owens, McGee, Phelps, and others. Pl.'s List ¶ 7E. Thereafter, he began to take significant sick leave. Def.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 11, 13; Ex. 13 to Def.'s MSJ, Sept. 16, 1998 Official Reprimand (“9/16/98 Official Reprimand”).

For the 1997–1998 annual performance evaluation, which covered the period of July 1, 1997, to June 30, 1998, NASA switched from a five-level scale to a pass-fail system. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 8. Nurriddin received a “pass” on his performance evaluation, but Phelps noted in the text of his review a “ ‘pattern of missed deadlines and unresponsiveness to his management that must be addressed and improved during the next year for [Nurriddin's] work to continue to be judged satisfactory.’ ” Id. ¶9 (quoting Ex. 7 to Def.'s MSJ, Nurriddin's 1997–1998 Performance Evaluation (“Pl.'s 1997–1998 Performance Evaluation”)). Nurriddin received an $800 performance award for the 1997–1998 period on August 17, 1998. Id. ¶10.

Two other events occurred in August 1998: Nurriddin received an official reprimand for failing to follow procedures regarding conference attendance and for failing to follow directions, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 79; Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 9–3], Aug. 26, 1998 Official Reprimand (“8/26/98 Official Reprimand”); and one of Nurriddin's co-workers, Gary Gans, received a grade increase from GS–13 to GS–14, but Nurriddin did not receive a grade increase, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 78.

Nurriddin took sick leave for “ ‘a significant part of the time from August 1998 through January 1999.’ ” Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 11 (quoting Ex. 9 to Def.'s MSJ, Affidavit of Sherri McGee (“McGee Aff.”) ¶ 15). In September 1998, Phelps issued an official reprimand of Nurriddin concerning his “continuing attendance problems,” stating that Nurriddin had been out of the office for 408 hours between May and September 1998, and that 161 of those hours were unplanned leave, and warning him “about the need to provide medical documentation when citing illness as a reason for absence.” Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 13; 9/16/98 Official Reprimand. Also in September 1998, Nurriddin filed another formal complaint, naming Owens, McGee, and Phelps. Pl.'s List ¶ 7H. In October 1998, Phelps issued another official reprimand of Nurriddin for his “continuing attendance problem and ... failure to follow leave procedures.” Ex. 40 to Def.'s MSJ, Oct. 30, 1998 Official Reprimand (“10/30/98 Official Reprimand”).

Thereafter, Nurriddin's requests to attend conferences in November and December 1998 were denied, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 84, and Nurriddin filed another EEO complaint, naming Owens, McGee, and Phelps, Pl.'s List ¶ 7G. In February 1999, he left the office for a one-year detail assignment at the National Science Foundation. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 11. Nurriddin did not receive a performance award for the July 1998 to June 1999 timeframe, and his annual performance evaluation for that period is not in the record.² Id. His supervisors, McGee and Phelps, explained that he was not given a performance award because he had been mostly out of the office on leave and then on a detail assignment. Id. In August 1999, Nurriddin filed another EEO complaint, naming Owens, McGee, and others. Pl.'s List ¶ 7H.

Nurriddin returned to NASA from his one-year detail assignment in February or March 2000. Def.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 11, 12. Not long after, he took leave from NASA for medical reasons. Id. ¶12. On April 12, 2000, Phelps sent Nurriddin a memorandum stating that he had failed to provide sufficient medical documentation for his leave requests. Id. ¶15; Ex. 16 to Def.'s MSJ, Apr. 12, 2000 Memorandum from Phelps to Nurriddin (“4/12/00 Memo from Phelps to Nurriddin”). Nurriddin briefly returned to work from May 15, 2000, through May 18, 2000, but then resumed medical leave.³ Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 12. On June 15, 2000, Phelps again sent Nurriddin a memorandum stating that he had failed to provide sufficient medical documentation for his leave requests. Id. ¶15; Ex. 17 to Def.'s MSJ, Jun. 15, 2000 Memorandum from Phelps to Nurriddin (“6/15/00 Memo from Phelps to Nurriddin”). “On July 6, 2000, NASA noted that [Nurriddin] hadn't ‘made any attempt even to request leave in a month; he has apparently refused to provide any medical documentation in support of his most recent absences, much less acceptable documentation.’ ” Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 15 (quoting Ex. 18 to Def.'s MSJ, July 6, 2000 Email Chain (“7/6/00 Email Chain”)). Around the same time, Nurriddin applied for and was accepted into NASA's Voluntary Leave Transfer Program, which permits eligible employees to receive annual leave donated by other federal employees. Def.'s Stmt. ¶ 16; Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 17.

From September 12, 2000, through December 1, 2000, Nurriddin's employment status was changed to AWOL. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 121. At some point in September 2000, he requested advance sick leave. On September 26, 2000, Phelps sent Nurriddin a letter denying his request for advance sick leave because he had been out of the office for over 1,000 hours since his return from detail, had failed to complete assignments, and had “fail[ed] to live up to [his] commitments concerning [his] return to work,” and because “we are not confident that you will return to work for a long enough period to repay the advance...