Richardson v. National Rifle Ass'n, Civ. A. No. 94-1977 (PLF).

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtFRIEDMAN
Citation871 F. Supp. 499
PartiesPercy RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, Defendant.
Decision Date19 December 1994
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 94-1977 (PLF).

871 F. Supp. 499

Percy RICHARDSON, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 94-1977 (PLF).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

December 19, 1994.


871 F. Supp. 500

Sol Zalel Rosen, Washington, DC, for plaintiff.

Stephen N. Shulman and Stephanie Meltzer, Washington, DC, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

Percy Richardson is an African American male who was employed by the National Rifle Association as an Assistant Manager from August 1989 until his discharge in March 1992. He alleges that the NRA engaged in racial discrimination by paying him a lower salary than similarly situated co-workers, unfairly placing him on probation after he was promoted to a new position, unjustifiably subjecting him to three performance evaluations between June and August 1992 and placing him on probation three times, subjecting him to unjust criticism in

871 F. Supp. 501
reference to his work and management style, and retaliating against him by terminating his employment after he complained of discriminatory treatment. Complaint, Count I, ¶ 4. In a three-count complaint, plaintiff alleges that his discharge was racially motivated and retaliatory. Count I alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Count II a violation of the Human Rights Law of the District of Columbia, and Count III unlawful discharge. Defendant has moved to dismiss Counts II and III of the complaint and for summary judgment on all counts. The Court grants the motion for summary judgment

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). Material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the "evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2514; see also Washington Post Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 865 F.2d 320, 325 (D.C.Cir.1989). But the non-moving party's opposition must consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials and must be supported by affidavits or other competent evidence setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The non-moving party is "required to provide evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find" in its favor. Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D.C.Cir.1987). If the evidence is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative," summary judgment may be granted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. at 2511.

In discrimination cases, summary judgment must be approached with special caution, and the Court "must be extra-careful to view all the evidence in the light most favorable" to plaintiff. Ross v. Runyon, 859 F.Supp. 15, 21-22 (D.D.C.1994). Nevertheless, a plaintiff is not relieved in a discrimination case of his obligation to support his allegations by affidavits or other competent evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If defendant provides evidence that plaintiff was terminated because of poor performance, as it has here, plaintiff "must then bring forward evidence of the pretextual nature of the legitimate non-discriminatory purpose posited by defendant.... Evidence of discrimination that is `merely colorable', or `not significantly probative' cannot prevent the issuance of summary judgment." Johnson v. Digital Equipment Corp., 836 F.Supp. 14, 15 (D.D.C.1993) (citation omitted). Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion fails to meet this test, and defendant's motion therefore will be granted.

Preliminarily, the Court addresses plaintiff's contention, raised for the first time at oral argument, that he is entitled to discovery before the Court rules on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file a motion under Rule 56(f), Fed.R.Civ. P., to seek postponement of the Court's consideration of the motion until after discovery, but instead filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion on the merits. Under Rule 56(f), the Court upon request may defer ruling on a summary judgment motion and allow the non-moving party an opportunity through limited discovery to obtain information relevant to an issue of material fact he maintains is in dispute. The party opposing summary judgment and seeking deferral, usually but not invariably by motion and affidavit, must (i) alert the Court to the need for further discovery and (ii) demonstrate, either through an affidavit or other documents such as opposing motions and outstanding discovery requests, how additional discovery will enable it to rebut the movant's allegations of no genuine issue of fact. First Chicago International v. United Exchange Co., LTD., 836 F.2d 1375, 1380 (D.C.Cir. 1988); Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 663 F.2d 120, 128 (D.C.Cir.1980). A Rule 56(f) affidavit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Sagar v. Mnuchin, Civil Action No. 14–1058 (RDM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 12, 2018
    ...the Department's criticism of his performance. See Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; Richardson v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n , 871 F.Supp. 499, 503 (D.D.C. 1994) (the factual assertions "either do not support [Plaintiff's] allegation or are immaterial").Sagar also disputes......
  • Fraternal Order of Police v. U.S., No. 97-5304
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 16, 1999
    ...1997 WL 198114, at * 1, n. 1, No. Civ. A. 95-2300-LFO (D.D.C. April 10, 1997) (summary judgment); Richardson v. National Rifle Ass'n, 871 F.Supp. 499, 501 (D.D.C.1994) (summary judgment). If the felon-misdemeanant issue had been properly briefed on appeal, it would have been proper for us t......
  • Lee v. Christian Coalition of America, Inc., No. 01-0405(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 27, 2001
    ...to a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII apply equally under Section 1981." See Richardson v. National Rifle Ass'n, 871 F.Supp. 499, 502 (D.D.C.1994) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 Page 28 a. The McDonnell Douglas Framewor......
  • Lempres v. CBS INC., Civil A. No. 95-451 (RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 16, 1996
    ...colorable" or "not significantly probative," summary judgment is still appropriate. Richardson v. National Rifle Ass'n, 871 F.Supp. 499, 501 (D.D.C.1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249-250, 106 S.Ct. at 2511). It is the objective of the summary judg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Sagar v. Mnuchin, Civil Action No. 14–1058 (RDM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 12, 2018
    ...the Department's criticism of his performance. See Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; Richardson v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n , 871 F.Supp. 499, 503 (D.D.C. 1994) (the factual assertions "either do not support [Plaintiff's] allegation or are immaterial").Sagar also disputes......
  • Fraternal Order of Police v. U.S., No. 97-5304
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 16, 1999
    ...1997 WL 198114, at * 1, n. 1, No. Civ. A. 95-2300-LFO (D.D.C. April 10, 1997) (summary judgment); Richardson v. National Rifle Ass'n, 871 F.Supp. 499, 501 (D.D.C.1994) (summary judgment). If the felon-misdemeanant issue had been properly briefed on appeal, it would have been proper for us t......
  • Lee v. Christian Coalition of America, Inc., No. 01-0405(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 27, 2001
    ...to a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII apply equally under Section 1981." See Richardson v. National Rifle Ass'n, 871 F.Supp. 499, 502 (D.D.C.1994) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 Page 28 a. The McDonnell Douglas Framewor......
  • Lempres v. CBS INC., Civil A. No. 95-451 (RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 16, 1996
    ...colorable" or "not significantly probative," summary judgment is still appropriate. Richardson v. National Rifle Ass'n, 871 F.Supp. 499, 501 (D.D.C.1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249-250, 106 S.Ct. at 2511). It is the objective of the summary judg......
  • 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