Robinson v. Geithner

• Decision Date: 31 May 2011
• Docket Number: Doc. 140.,CASE NO. CV F 05-1258 LJO SKO
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: KENNETH ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant.

KENNETH ROBINSON Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant.

CASE NO. CV F 05-1258 LJO SKO

Doc. 140.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: May 31, 2011

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ("Secretary") seeks summary judgment in the absence of evidence to support plaintiff Kenneth Robinson's ("Mr. Robinson's") discrimination and retaliation claims arising from denial of an off site liaison detail for his Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") employment. Mr. Robinson responds that he was denied the liaison detail to retaliate against his administrative complaint alleging discrimination and filed ten days before to his denial of the liaison detail. This Court considered the Secretary's summary judgment motion on the record without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).¹ For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS the Secretary summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Summary

Mr. Robinson is black and a former supervising manager at the Fresno IRS Service Center ("Fresno center"). Mr. Robinson pursues a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., based on denial of a several-month long, out-of-town liaison detail for late 2002 to early 2003.² The grounds for the denial were his falsification of travel vouchers and similar misconduct when he served a 2000-2001 detail. In opposing summary judgment, Mr. Robinson claims that he was denied the liaison position on September 5, 2002 in retaliation for filing an August 23, 2002 administrative complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") based on alleged discrimination subject to a prior Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") complaint.

Travel Voucher Discrepancies

Effective October 22, 2000 to January 28, 2001, Mr. Robinson was detailed to the IRS Media and Publications department as an in plant liaison and traveled to and worked in non-IRS facilities to assist to prepare tax forms and literature. The liaison position involved substantial travel. Mr. Robinson had served a prior in plant liaison detail during late 1999 to early 2000. Mr. Robinson notes that the details would typically last several months after which he returned to his "regular job."

In 2001, Mr. Robinson's supervisor Deposit Department Manager Sharon Brockbank ("Ms. Brockbank") discovered discrepancies with Mr. Robinson's travel vouchers for his 2000-2001 in plant liaison position. Regetter Nobles ("Ms. Nobles"), then assistant branch chief of the Receipt and Control Branch,³ investigated the travel voucher discrepancies with Ms. Brockbank and Byron Morgan ("Mr. Morgan"), Receipt and Control Branch Chief.

In her declaration, Ms. Nobles states:

Through our investigation, we discovered that Mr. Robinson submitted a claimfor reimbursement of $819.00 with respect to a rental car despite the fact that he had received a credit from the rental car agency in the amount of approximately $700, meaning that, in fact, Mr. Robinson had been billed only approximately $100. Thus, Mr. Robinson's reimbursement request over-valued his expenses by approximately $700, and he had been paid this amount.

...

As a result of our investigation, Ms. Brockbank and I determined that Mr. Robinson had submitted false travel documents that over-stated the true amount of expenses Mr. Robinson incurred. We also determined that Mr. Robinson failed to make timely payments on his government-issued credit card in November and December 2000. This conduct violated specific written directives to submit proper travel documents in a timely manner. Further, Mr. Robinson had been ordered to submit an amended voucher and a check reimbursing the IRS for the $700 he was paid based on his travel voucher directly to the Branch Office. Instead, Robinson sent a check in a different amount to a different office despite Ms. Brockbank's direct order.

Ms. Nobles notes that Mr. Robinson "informed us that he believed that Tommy Villado [("Mr. Villado")], another IRS employee, also had problems with this vouchers with respect to a similar liaison detail." Ms. Nobles attributes Mr. Robinson to have attempted "to excuse his errors by pointing to the conduct of Mr. Villado." Ms. Nobles and Ms. Brockbank investigated and determined that Mr. Villado did not have the same number of discrepancies and that Mr. Villado's discrepancies "were not of as a serious nature as those of Mr. Robinson."

Mr. Robinson appears to identify Ms. Brockbank as another IRS employee who was not disciplined for travel voucher issues. In his interrogatory responses, Mr. Robinson claims that Ms. Brockbank, "a non-African American, admitted having similar issues with vouchers and other travel related expenses as did Plaintiff, she was not disciplined."

In August 2001, Mr. Robinson was suspended one month for "falsification of documents in matters of official interest" (travel vouchers), "failure to comply with written directives and policies," and "failure to properly make payments" on a government-issued credit card.⁴ Mr. Robinson claims the suspension was racially discriminatory and on September 19, 2001, amended a pending EEOC complaint to include the suspension. Mr. Robinson had been named as a class member in an April 17, 2001 administrative complaint.

In October 2001, Mr. Robinson was demoted from his supervisory position to a non-supervisory contact representative position.

Ms. Nobles declares that neither Ms. Brockbank nor Mr. Villado had been demoted or suspended due to travel voucher problems and that Ms. Brockbank did not serve as an in plant liaison during 20002001.

Mr. Robinson's 2002 Application For In Plant Liaison Detail

On May 19, 2002, Mr. Robinson was detailed as a tax exam assistant to the accounts management department, the manager of which was Emma Smith ("Ms. Smith"). The detail was scheduled to terminate on September 7, 2002, and Mr. Robinson's immediate supervisor was Colleen Gonzalez ("Ms. Gonzalez"). Mr. Robinson declared that during May to early September 2002, neither Ms. Gonzalez, Ms. Smith nor another IRS manager communicated "as to where my permanent position with the IRS was going to be. All I knew is that I was on a temporary detail working under Colleen Gonzalez." Mr. Robinson received a "fully successful" June 17, 2002 performance evaluation.

In 2002, Mr. Robinson applied for another in plant liaison detail and on August 5, 2002 was notified of his selection, which Mr. Robinson accepted.

On August 26, 2002, Mr. Robinson filed a MSPB administrative complaint based on facts subject to his EEOC claim.

In his deposition, Mr. Robinson testified that in late August or early September 2002, he was informed that he would not be released for the in plant liaison detail but was not given a reason. In his declaration, Mr. Robinson attributes Ms. Gonzalez during the first week of September 2002 to have informed him orally that he would not be released but "[s]he did not give me a reason." Mr. Robinson's September 5, 2002 note to Ms. Gonzalez "requested in writing the reasons for the denial."

On September 5, 2002, Mr. Robinson met with Ms. Smith regarding denial of the in plant liaison detail. In his declaration, Mr. Robinson attributes Ms. Smith to have informed him that "I was being transferred to a new unit in the middle of October and that I was denied the Liaison position so I could receive 'technical training.' This was the first time I had been told that I would be transferred to a new unit or that I was to receive any kind of training as a 'tax examiner.'"

After September 5, 2002, Mr. Robinson received Ms. Gonzalez' memo that he was on detail asa tax examiner with the accounts management department. The memo states:

As you were informed you will be attending technical training during the months of October, November, & December.

. . . This technical training will be starting in mid-October. Therefore, management is unable to release you at this time.

In his deposition, Mr. Robinson "concluded" that "I had been removed because they said I made an error on a travel voucher." Although he claims that he is unable to "pinpoint a person on a certain date or a certain meeting," Mr. Robinson testified that someone at IRS told him that his falsified travel vouchers were "also" a reason to deny his release to the in plant liaison detail:

Q. . . . you don't recall when a conversation would have occurred and don't recall with whom any particular conversation occurred in which you were told that you were denied the position because you had previously submitted improper travel vouchers; is that correct?

A. Right. At some point, management let me know, but it was much later. After I had concluded what had happened, I found out that it was based on that also, but no one told me at that time, and I can't remember where - who told me, but I did find out eventually, much later.

Q. And do you remember when you found out much later that you were expressly told by management that one of the reasons that you were denied the position was because you had previously submitted improper travel vouchers?

A. I can't remember.

Q. Do you remember who told you?

A. No.

Q. But you do recall someone in management finally telling you, this is one of the reasons that you were denied the In Plant position?

A. Yes.

Mr. Robinson is unsure "who would be the individual to release" him to the in plant liaison detail. Mr. Robinson attributes Bonnie Lewis ("Ms. Lewis") to have "had a say-so in that decision." Mr. Robinson lacks knowledge that Ms. Lewis considered Mr. Robinson's race or prior Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") activity:

Q. Do you have any evidence that you're aware of to indicate that Ms. Lewis took into account your race in determining not to release you for the In Plant Liaison position in 2002?

A. No.Q. Do you have any evidence that Ms. Lewis took into account any prior EEO activity that you had been involved with,

...