Oluyomi v. Napolitano

Decision Date19 September 2011
Docket Number09 Civ. 10293(GWG).,Nos. 09 Civ. 9171(GWG),s. 09 Civ. 9171(GWG)
PartiesAlaba OLUYOMI, Plaintiff, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Alaba Oluyomi, Lawrenceville, NJ, pro se.

James Nicholas Boeving, U.S. Attorney Office, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Alaba Oluyomi, proceeding pro se, brings these actions pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to e–17 (Title VII), alleging that defendants Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (collectively, the “Government”), discriminated against him on the basis of his race, color, and national origin. The parties consented to have this matter decided by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Oluyomi and the Government have each moved for summary judgment as to both of the actions. For the reasons discussed below, Oluyomi's motions for summary judgment are denied and the Government's motions for summary judgment are granted.

I. BACKGROUNDA. The Instant Proceedings

Oluyomi commenced these actions through two separate complaints, one filed on November 4, 2009, and the other filed on December 18, 2009, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin under Title VII. See Complaint for Employment Discrimination, filed Nov. 4, 2009 (Docket # 1 in 09 Civ. 9171) (“9171 Compl.”); Complaint for Employment Discrimination, filed Dec. 18, 2009 (Docket # 1 in 09 Civ. 10293) (“10293 Compl.”). In the 09 Civ. 9171 complaint, Oluyomi claims failure to promote and “disregard of veterans' preference right.” 9171 Compl. at 2–3. In the 09 Civ. 10293 complaint, he challenges two incidents of discipline, alleging they are the result of discrimination and retaliation for his prior EEO activity. See 10293 Compl. at 3.

On March 10, 2011, Oluyomi filed a motion for summary judgment as to his two actions against the Government.1 On March 15, 2011, the Government moved for summary judgment with regard to both of the actions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, and opposed Oluyomi's motion.2 Also on March 15, 2011, the Court denied Oluyomi's motion because it did not contain the statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.1 and because it was unaccompanied by any affidavits or declarations attesting to the authenticity of the documents upon which the motion relied. See Order, filed Mar. 15, 2011 (Docket # 35 in 09 Civ. 9171) (Docket # 40 in 09 Civ. 10293). The Court, however, gave Oluyomi leave to re-submit a motion for summary judgment as a cross-motion to the Government's motion and without refiling the motion or exhibits. Id. The Court noted that Oluyomi would need to submit the statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.1 and, if he wished the exhibits to be considered, a declaration or affidavit attesting to their authenticity. Id. Oluyomi subsequently re-submitted his motion for summary judgment, curing the defects of his previous motion.3

B. Evidence Presented on the Summary Judgment Motions

Oluyomi “is an African–American male of Nigerian ancestry.” See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 1; Pl. Opp. at 2 ¶ 1. Oluyomi began his employment at the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) as an inspection officer in Atlanta, Georgia. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 1; Pl. Opp. at 2 ¶ 1; Boeving Decl. 9171 ¶ 3; Depositon of Alaba Oluyomi, dated Nov. 30, 2010 (annexed as Ex. B to Boeving Decl. 9171) (Oluyomi Dep. 9171) at 27.

1. Facts Relating to Claims Raised in 09 Civ. 9171
a. Background Facts

In 2004, Oluyomi became an adjudication officer in the New York Field Office of DHS. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 5; Pl. Opp. at 2 ¶ 5; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 28. Between 2004 and 2006 he worked in the “Adjustment of Status Unit.” See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 6; Pl. Opp. at 2 ¶ 6; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 29, 53. For two to three months after this assignment, he was detailed to the “Legalization Unit.” See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 7; Pl. Opp. at 2 ¶ 7; Oluyomi Tr. at 33. Thereafter, Oluyomi went on detail to the “NTA Unit” for approximately one year. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 8; Pl. Opp. at 2 ¶ 8; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 29–30. In 2007, following the conclusion of this detail, he was assigned to the “Naturalization Unit.” See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 9; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶ 9; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 30, 53. Oluyomi has never managed employees at DHS. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 10; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶ 10; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 136–37.

Oluyomi received an undergraduate degree in computer science from Ogun State University in Nigeria. His undergraduate studies did not include any courses in the areas of immigration law or policy. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶¶ 11–12; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶¶ 11–12; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 9, 11–13. Oluyomi also has a Master's degree in computer science from the University of Maryland. His studies at the University of Maryland did not include any course work in the areas of immigration law or policy. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶¶ 13–14; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶¶ 13–14; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 13–14. Oluyomi recently completed an online Ph.D. program at Walden University, focusing on applied management and decision sciences. These studies also did not include any courses on immigration law or policy. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶¶ 15–16; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶ ¶ 15–16; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 14–17, 19–22.

b. Vacancy Announcement CIS–137951–BUR

Vacancy Announcement CIS–137951–BUR announced an opening for the position of “Senior Adjudication Officer (Temporary).” See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 17; Pl. 56.1 Stat. ¶ 2; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶ 17. The position required, inter alia, the abilities to analyze and implement immigration law and policy, to act as a liaison between the New York field office and DHS headquarters in Washington, D.C., to conduct research and provide recommendations on cases, and to provide training to other DHS employees. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 18; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶ 18; Senior Adjudication Officer (Temporary) (annexed as Ex. C to Boeving Decl. 9171); Position Description (annexed as Ex. D to Boeving Decl. 9171); Ryan Decl. ¶ 3; Troy Decl. 9171 ¶ 2; Bunce Decl. 9171 ¶ 2; Rosina Decl. ¶ 2.

The position was announced in accordance with the “Merit Promotion procedures,” and thus selections were made according to the “Tri–Bureau Merit Promotion Plan.” See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 19; Pl. Opp. at 3 ¶ 19; Clark Decl. ¶ 6; U.S. Customs and Border Protection (annexed as Ex. K to Clark Decl.) (“U.S. Customs and Border Protection”). Pursuant to the Merit Promotion Plan, the selecting officials considered, inter alia, answers to job-related questions, narrative responses, and structured interviews. See U.S. Customs and Border Protection § 5.7; see Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 20; Pl. Opp. at 4 ¶ 20. “Because the individuals selected for the position would train other adjudication[ ] officers and interact with the public, their communication and interpersonal skills were critical.” Ryan Decl. ¶ 4; See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 22; Pl. Opp. at 4 ¶ 22. Oluyomi applied to this position by submitting a résumé and narrative responses to required questions. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 23; Pl. Opp. at 4 ¶ 23; Oluyomi Dep. 9171 at 63, 81. Twenty-nine individuals, including Oluyomi, were certified as eligible for this position. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 24; Pl. Opp. at 4 ¶ 24; Clark Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Burlington Service Center Merit Promotion Certificate of Eligibles Control Sheet (annexed as Ex. I to Clark Decl.) (“Burlington Service Ctr. Merit Promotion Certificate”).

Six individuals were on a recommending panel that interviewed candidates and made recommendations to the selecting official: Dennis Bunce (Section Chief of the Naturalization Unit), Enrica Troy (Site Manager in the Naturalization Unit), John Ryan (Section Chief of the Adjudications 2 Unit and acting supervisor of the other section chiefs), James Tu (Section Chief of the Adjudications 3 Unit), Steve Rosina (Section Chief of the Adjustment of Status Unit), and Sue Young (Site Manager in the Adjustment of Status Unit). See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶¶ 27–33; Pl. Opp. at 4–5 ¶¶ 27–33; Ryan Decl. ¶¶ 6–9; Troy Decl. 9171 ¶¶ 4–5; Bunce Decl. 9171 ¶¶ 4–5; Rosina Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. The selecting official, Field Office Director Gwynne MacPherson, had been delegated that responsibility by District Director Andrea Quarantillo. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 34; Pl. Opp. at 5 ¶ 34; Quarantillo Decl. 9171 ¶¶ 3–4. Quarantillo played no role in the selections for this vacancy. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 35; Pl. Opp. at 5 ¶ 35; Quarantillo Decl. 9171 ¶ 3.

Ryan was in charge of coordinating the hiring process for Senior Adjudication Officers under this vacancy. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 36; Pl. Opp. at 5 ¶ 36; Ryan Decl. ¶ 8. He divided the six panel members into three teams of two in order to conduct interviews. The teams consisted of: (1) Bunce and Troy, (2) Ryan and Tu, and (3) Rosina and Young. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 37; Pl. Opp. at 5 ¶ 37; Ryan Decl. ¶ 9. Candidates were interviewed by a team that did not include anyone who was the candidate's current or former permanent supervisor. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 38, Pl. Opp. at 5 ¶ 38; Ryan Decl. ¶ 8. Each candidate was asked the same questions during the interview. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 39; Pl. Opp. at 6 ¶ 39; Ryan Decl. ¶ 8; Troy Decl. 9171 ¶ 5; Bunce Decl. 9171 ¶ 5. After interviewing candidates, the panel members discussed the interviews together, informed the panel of their strongest candidates, and solicited feedback from other panel members regarding these candidates, including those members who had acted as the candidate's current or former supervisors. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 40; Pl. Opp. at 6 ¶ 40; Ryan Decl. ¶¶ 8, 17; Troy Decl. 9171 ¶ 5; Bunce Decl. 9171 ¶¶ 5, 10; Rosina Decl. ¶ 12. Rosina had previously served as Oluyomi's second line supervisor. See Def. 56.1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 41; Pl....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Baity v. Kralik
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 September 2014
    ...Jagmohan v. Long Island R.R. Co., No. 12–CV–3146, 2014 WL 4417745, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2014) ; see also Oluyomi v. Napolitano, 811 F.Supp.2d 926, 947–48 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (noting that “any dispute as to what actually transpired [in an incident leading to the plaintiff's suspension], is n......
  • Mento v. Potter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 21 May 2012
    ...and constitutes a legitimate non-discriminatory reason on which to base Plaintiff's suspension. See, e.g., Oluyomi v. Napolitano, 811 F. Supp. 2d 926, 948-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (failure to comply with one-day suspension constituted legitimate non-discriminatory reason for 14-day suspension); R......
  • Simmons v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 13 December 2017
    ...*32 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008) (citing Byrnie, 243 F.3d at 103), aff'd, 382 F. App'x 4 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Oluyomi v. Napolitano, 811 F. Supp. 2d 926, 943 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("An employer has the right to decide how it will value the qualifications of different candidates." (citing Scaria ......
  • James v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp.'s Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 14 April 2014
    ...protected activity. Thus, it cannot possibly have been in retaliation for plaintiff's complaints. See Oluyomi v. Napolitano, 811 F. Supp. 2d 926, 947 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (explaining that "even if there had been a delay in seeking [plaintiff's] response to the allegation [in violation of protoco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT