Rae v. Children's Nat'l Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 28 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 15-cv-0736 (KBJ),15-cv-0736 (KBJ)
• Parties: CHARLESWORTH RAE, Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

CHARLESWORTH RAE, Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.

No. 15-cv-0736 (KBJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

December 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Charlesworth Rae, an African-American man of Antiguan descent, was employed as an Investigational Research Pharmacist at Children's National Medical Center ("CNMC") from February of 2010 until CNMC terminated his employment in December of 2014. (See 1st Am. Compl. ("Am. Compl."), ECF No. 22-1, ¶¶ 3, 5, 7.) Rae has brought the instant action against CNMC and various CNMC employees (collectively, "Defendants") under both federal and state law, alleging that he was not promoted, and was eventually terminated, due to his race and national origin, and also that Defendants ultimately fired him in retaliation for his having repeatedly expressed legitimate concerns about CNMC's pharmacy operations and for filing a police report accusing his supervisor of assault. (See id. ¶¶ 46-78.) Rae's claims have been narrowed through the course of this litigation, such that the only claims that are still at issue are those that he asserts for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Counts I and II); (2) racially discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C. Code Ann. §§ 2-1401.01-1404.04 (Count III); (3) racially discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count IV); and (4) racially discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-e-17 (Count VI). Counts I-IV are asserted against CNMC, Dr. Sarah Donegan (Rae's supervisor), Dr. Ursula Tachie-Menson (Donegan's supervisor), Zandra Russell (a CNMC Human Resources representative), and Darryl Varnado (CNMC's Executive Vice President and Chief People Officer). (See id. at 1 n.1.)¹ Count VI is asserted only against CNMC. (See id.)

On March 15, 2017, after discovery had closed, this Court referred this matter to a magistrate judge for full case management through the district's random-assignment process. (See Min. Entry of Sept. 6, 2016; Min. Order of Mar. 15, 2017.) The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, who subsequently granted in part a motion that Rae filed seeking to reopen discovery. (See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 40, at 4, 7.) The parties proceeded to engage in a renewed period of discovery, and once they had resolved all of their discovery disputes, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (See 2d. Joint Status Report, ECF No. 58; see also Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs.' Mot."), ECF No. 59.) On March 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge Robinson issued the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") that is appended hereto as Appendix A; in that Report, Magistrate Judge Robinson recommends that Defendants' summary judgment motion be granted in its entirety with respect to Rae's remaining claims against the remaining defendants. (See R & R, ECF No. 71, at 2.)

Before this Court at present is the R & R and Rae's objection thereto. (See Pl.'s Obj. to R & R ("Pl.'s Obj."), ECF No. 78.) Rae argues that Magistrate Judge Robinson applied the wrong causation standard to his claims (see id. at 1), that the R & R improperly found that he had not specified any identifiable policy to support his claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (see id. at 2), that Magistrate Judge Robinson erred in finding that he had not identified evidence to support his claims of discrimination and retaliation against CNMC (see id. at 4, 12-13; 17-18), and that Magistrate Judge Robinson had improperly granted summary judgment to the individual defendants based on the purported failure of his claims against CNMC (see id. at 15). Rae's objection further maintains that CNMC may have "vitiated" their "at-will employment relationship" because it offered him a severance package—an argument that he did not include in the summary judgment briefing that Magistrate Judge Robinson addressed. (See id. at 17.)²

This Court has carefully reviewed the R & R, the parties' submissions, and the record evidence, and for the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Robinson's report and recommendation must be ADOPTED IN PART, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment will ultimately be GRANTED IN FULL. In particular, while the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Robinson applied the wrong causation standard to the wrongful discharge claim and that the R & R is also erroneous with respect to its finding that Rae had not identified any public policy tosupport his wrongful termination claims, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Robinson that there is insufficient record evidence of causation with respect to all of Rae's claims, and thus no reasonable jury could find that Rae had satisfied each of the elements for any of the legal claims presented. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.

I. BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural background underlying this matter is fully recounted in Magistrate Judge Robinson's R & R and the various prior rulings that narrowed the scope of the claims on which Rae is proceeding. What follows is a brief recitation of the relevant background facts pertaining to Rae's remaining claims, which turn on his contention that Defendants are liable for "Racially Discriminatory/Retaliatory Discharge" (see Am. Compl., Counts III, IV, VI) and for terminating his employment in violation of public policy (see id. Counts I, II).³

A. Facts

CNMC hired Rae in February of 2010 as a pharmacist in the Investigational Drug Services ("IDS") Pharmacy, and he was an at-will employee of CNMC. (See Decl. of Charlesworth Rae ("Rae Decl."), Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 60-2, ¶¶ 2-3.) Shortly after Rae was hired, he began expressing safety and regulatory concerns with respect to various practices that he allegedly observed at CNMC. For example, he reported to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") hisconcerns about data tampering and falsification of records with respect to an ongoing study. (See id. ¶ 4.) Such reports continued throughout his tenure. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 5, 16-18.) In September of 2013, defendant Dr. Sarah Donegan (who is Caucasian) was hired as the Manager of the IDS Pharmacy, even though she lacked a license to practice pharmacy in the District of Columbia at the time that she was hired. (See id. ¶ 8.)

Donegan and Rae had a tense relationship from the moment that Donegan began working at CNMC. In one instance, for example, Donegan conveyed to Rae that he was improperly loud and aggressive when he addressed her. (See Ex. 16 to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 59-18, at 1 (noting that Donegan told Rae during a meeting that she felt bullied by him during their interactions because he repeatedly interrupted her and increased his tone when talking to her); Ex. 19 to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 59-21, at 1 (noting, in the context of a counseling memorandum that Donegan issued to Rae regarding his behavior, that Rae "raised [his] voice" and refused to lower it, and "became disruptive to others" during a meeting on May 29, 2014).) In addition, Donegan had concerns about Rae copying his personal email when responding to her or sending emails to CNMC employees, and she asked him to refrain from doing this—a request that Rae did not honor. (See Ex. 24 to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 59-26, at 1.) Rae also apparently initially resisted instructions from Donegan to sign off on certain paperwork in connection with a research study, which resulted in a warning from Donegan to Rae about his conduct being deemed insubordination. (See Ex. 25 to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 59-27, at 1-5.) Rae ultimately signed off on the necessary paperwork, but he indicated that he was doing so "under duress." (Id. at 1.)

The tense nature of their relationship was apparently also obvious to others at CNMC. On December 13, 2013, Donegan's supervisor, Dr. Tachie-Menson, sent an email to CNMC's Human Resources office ("HR") requesting a meeting to discuss Rae in light of her concerns that Rae "is undermining [Donegan's] authority [because] [w]henever he doesn't agree with a decision made by her, he sends a response to HR and to compliance[,] . . . [and he] has been resistant to any change she has attempted to make for the improvement of the workflow and documentation compliance." (Ex. 15 to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 59-17, at 1.) The record is also replete with email communications between Donegan and Rae—with cc's to Rae's personal email account, Tachie-Menson, and various individuals in HR, including HR contact Zandra Russell—and these exchanges consistently demonstrate Rae's resistance to Donegan's requests to meet with him individually to discuss issues related to his work. (See, e.g., Ex. 16 to Defs.' Mot. at 1; see also Ex. 20 to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 59-22, at 1 (email from Rae to Donegan in response to an Outlook meeting invitation, in which Rae states, "Based on your repeated hostility towards me . . . I would prefer not to meet . . . today. Alternatively, I would like to have an opportunity to first discuss my concerns with the Legal Department before meeting with you and HR under these circumstances"); Ex. 22 to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 59-24, at 1 (email chain between Russell and Rae, during which Russell states, in response to Rae's statements about being uncomfortable meeting with Donegan, that "Dr. Donegan has the right as your manager to meet with you to discuss work-related issues[,]" and that "you were [previously] advised to meet with Pharmacy management when requested and to perform your job as expected").)

For his part, Rae allegedly had his own concerns about Donegan's conduct and work performance. In October of 2014, Rae filed a claim of assault with the Metropolitan Police Department, based on his allegation that Donegan...