Ramsey v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
| Decision Date | 20 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO.: WDQ-12-2375 |
| Parties | GARY RAMSEY, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Gary Ramsey, pro se, sued the Department of Veterans Affairs (the "VA") for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")1 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA").2 ECF Nos. 1, 10 at 1-2. Pending is the VA's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. ECF No. 19. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2012). For the following reasons, the VA will be granted summary judgment.
In 1993, the VA hired Ramsey,4 an African-American male, as a food service worker, paid hourly. ECF Nos. 19-4, 19-5. In 1999, he was reassigned to an hourly position as a housekeeping aid. ECF No. 19-7. In 2005, Valery Coleman hired Ramsey as an information receptionist for the VA Health Care System Customer Service Program, a GS-4 level salaried federal government job. ECF Nos. 19-9, 19-10 at 3. Coleman, an African-American female, was Ramsey's supervisor during his entire tenure in this job. ECF No. 19-11 at 3. Ramsey's job primarily involved some clerical work and fielding questions from patients and their families who approached him at the information desk. ECF Nos. 19-10 at 6-7, 19-14 at 1-2. His job description also required that he assist patients as needed to reach the "appropriate inpatient unit" and to transport discharged patients to their cars or other transportation. ECF No. 19-14 at 2. When escort services were unavailable, he had to provide those services to patients in wheelchairs or who otherwise required specialassistance. Id. Coleman consistently gave Ramsey a rating of "exceptional" for his customer service performance. ECF No. 19-11 at 14.
Ramsey's performance ratings in other categories were not satisfactory, however. See id. Ramsey was frequently late to arrive to work and late to return from his breaks. Id. at 6. He occasionally failed to inform Coleman that he intended to take leave and often failed to record the leave he had taken when reporting his hours. See, e.g., id. at 4, 8; ECF No. 19-17. He was frequently absent from the information desk during his duty hours. See, e.g., ECF No. 19-11 at 6. His co-workers, two African-American females and one African-American male, complained to Coleman about his absences.5 ECF No. 19-10 at 8-9, 12. A volunteer refused to work with him, because he often left her alone at the desk. Id. at 16; ECF Nos. 19-16, 19-17. Coleman often informally reprimanded Ramsey about his absences and lateness, and he was placed on a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) several times.6 ECF No. 19-10 at 23-24.
Ramsey contends that he was often absent from the desk, because he was assisting patients in various ways.7 See, e.g., id. at 16. He asserts that Coleman unfairly watched him constantly, and frequently reprimanded him for leaving the desk; he felt that his job was to do everything he could to help patients, including tasks that required him to leave the desk. Id. at 9-11. He contends that his co-workers were not closely watched or reprimanded. Id. at 12. He acknowledged that Coleman told him he should not leave the desk, and that his coworkers did not generally leave the desk. Id. at 8, 11. He also acknowledged that he was often late to work--on average about 10-30 minutes late, about three times each month. Id. at 14-15. Coleman asserts that Ramsey's absences often did not involve helping patients, he was late almost every day, and her close supervision of him was in response to his co-workers'complaints and her frequent observations of his absence from the desk when she left her office. ECF No. 19-11 at 5-6.
In July 2007, Ramsey applied for two jobs at higher grades than his information receptionist position. See ECF No. 22-1 at 3. Applicants for the jobs received scores in five categories to determine their eligibility. See id. Applicants had to receive a ranking of "highly qualified" based on their scores to be considered for the jobs. See id. Ramsey received low scores in two of the categories; his "qualified" ranking disqualified him from consideration. See id. The candidates who were chosen for the jobs received rankings of "highly qualified." See id. at 3-4. In October 2007, Ramsey filed an Equal Employment Office (EEO) complaint, alleging that the failure to promote him was due to race and age discrimination and retaliation for his previous EEO complaints. See id. at 2-3. In December 2008, his claim was denied for lack of evidence. See id. at 9-10.
In September 2008, Ramsey told Coleman that he was taking a class at the University of Phoenix, and he hoped to earn his Master's in Business Administration ("MBA"). ECF No. 19-10 at 16-17. According to Ramsey, Coleman told him that he might be eligible for reimbursement, but that the course did not appearto be related to his job. See id. at 16. Ramsey never received reimbursement for the class.8 Id.
In January 2011, Coleman met with Ramsey and his union representative to inform them that if Ramsey's work performance did not improve, she would begin the process of written counseling with him, a higher level of discipline. Id. at 25; ECF No. 19-11 at 6. During his March 2011 midyear review, Coleman told Ramsey that his performance had not improved and she planned to begin the written counseling process. See ECF No. 19-10 at 25-26. In response, Ramsey told Coleman he planned to retire in April. ECF No. 19-11 at 8. Ramsey did not retire in April, but asserts that Coleman told him that she had begun the process to fire him.9 ECF No. 19-10 at 22, 27. Ramsey retired in June 2011. Id. at 27.
Before his retirement, Ramsey received a gold pin award--an award for exceptional actions by VA employees. ECF No. 19-11 at 12. He was recommended for the award because he helped a nurse find her wallet. See ECF No. 19-20 at 2. According to Ramsey,the award was intentionally withheld for several months, because Coleman thought he did not deserve it. ECF No. 19-10 at 19-20. According to Coleman, gold pin awards are generally given out at staff meetings, and employees are not told in advance that they will receive an award. ECF No. 19-11 at 12-13. Ramsey was scheduled to attend at least three staff meetings during which he would have received the award, but he did not attend the meetings.10 Id. at 12. Ramsey was presented with the award at his retirement party. Id. at 13.
On September 21, 2011, Ramsey filed a discrimination complaint with the VA's Office of Resolution Management ("ORM"). ECF No. 19-23 at 1. On July 19, 2012 after the ORM's investigation, the VA's Office of Employment Discrimination issued a written opinion which concluded that Ramsey "failed to prove that he was discriminated against as alleged." ECF No. 19-24 at 1, 12. He was issued a right to sue notice. Id. at 13.
On August 9, 2012, Ramsey timely filed a complaint against the VA.11 ECF No. 1. He alleged that he was subjected to raceand age discrimination resulting in a hostile work environment and his constructive discharge in violation of the ADEA and Title VII. See id. at 10-12. He also alleged that the VA retaliated against him because of his EEO complaints. See id. On November 28, 2012, upon Court order,12 Ramsey filed a supplemental complaint, alleging discriminatory and retaliatory failure to promote. ECF No. 10. To support his various claims, he asserts that Coleman: (1) "constantly asked about [his] whereabouts;" (2) "constantly watched [him];" (3) "refused to sign off on paperwork so that [he] could be reimbursed for a course he took;" and (4) delayed giving him the gold pin award until he retired. ECF No. 1 at 2. He contends that if he had been younger,13 white,14 or had not made EEO complaints, these actions would not have occurred. See, e.g., ECF No. 19-10 at 19. He also asserts that he would have been promoted or notforced to retire, if he was younger, white,15 or had not complained of his treatment. See id. at 30.
On November 28, 2012, Ramsey moved again for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 9. On March 18, 2 013, the Court denied this motion without prejudice.16 ECF No. 21.
On March 12, 2013, the VA moved to dismiss Ramsey's complaint for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment. ECF No. 19. On March 29, 2013, Ramsey responded. ECF No. 22. On April 12, 2013, the VA replied. ECF No. 23.
The Court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).18 In considering the motion, the judge's function is "not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248.
The Court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor," Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir. 2002), but the Court must abide by the "affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial," Bouchat v. Bait. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Under the ADEA, an employer may not "discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to . . . privileges of employment, because of such individual's...
To continue reading
Request your trial