Rodriguez v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
| Decision Date | 23 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-3710 (JEB) |
| Parties | ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Ernesto Rodriguez is a successful boxing coach. The problem according to his former employer, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, is that he should not have been coaching while out on workers'-compensation leave. When WMATA discharged him, pointing to this work and his untruthfulness about it in an administrative investigation, Rodriguez sued. He alleges that this termination was actually motivated by his race, color, and national origin, thereby constituting unlawful discrimination. Both parties now cross-move for summary judgment.
Believing that WMATA generally has the stronger position, the Court will grant its Motion on the bulk of Plaintiff's claims but not as to race discrimination. The Court will also deny Plaintiff's Motion in its entirety, meaning that this fight will go another round.
Because the Court is focusing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will construe the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303, 308 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Rodriguez worked as a Metro Transit Police Department officer at WMATA from 2009 until January 2019, when he was discharged. See ECF No. 13-2 (Pl. Resp. to Def. SMF), ¶¶ 1, 35. He identifies his national origin as Panamanian, his color as Black, and his race as Black and Hispanic. Id., ¶ 3. Rodriguez was on leave due to injury and received workers' compensation from January to March 2018, and again from July 2018 to January 2019. Id., ¶¶ 4, 12; see also ECF No. 1 (Compl.), ¶¶ 11, 27, 29; ECF No. 13-4, Exh. B (Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspections (OPRI) Report) at 163.
In 2018, MTPD's OPRI conducted an audit of the ten MTPD officers on workers'-compensation leave at the time. See Pl. Resp. to Def. SMF, ¶¶ 4, 7. Sergeant Daniel Alvarez and Captain Gregory Hanna were in charge. Id., ¶ 6. As part of the audit, Alvarez discovered that Plaintiff was training a professional boxer, Jarrett Hurd. Id., ¶ 9. Alvarez viewed multiple photos and videos on social media of Rodriguez and Hurd training together, some of which were taken after Plaintiff went on leave in July 2018. Id., ¶¶ 9-10. Alvarez and Hanna thus requested that Rodriguez meet with them for an administrative interview on January 4, 2019, shortly after Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work. Id., ¶¶ 11-13.
In the recorded interview, Alvarez asked Plaintiff if he was working in any off-duty secondary employment. Id., ¶ 13. Rodriguez responded that he had been volunteering as a boxing coach since 2000. Id., ¶ 14. Alvarez then asked him if he was familiar with MTPD General Order 245, which requires officers to seek approval from the MTPD Chief for any off-duty employment. Id., ¶ 17. General Order 245 also lists an additional level of required approval from the MTPD Chief for any officer seeking off-duty employment while on workers'-compensation leave. Id., ¶ 20. Rodriguez admitted that he was familiar with the General Order and that he had sought approval to work as a boxing coach in some prior years. Id., ¶¶ 17-18. When asked whether he was compensated for training boxers, Rodriguez informed Alvarez that he had made $500, 000 from two fights that Hurd had won. Id., ¶ 19.
Plaintiff was thus placed on administrative leave with pay, and MTPD conducted a second administrative interview on January 15, 2019. Id., ¶¶ 21-22. During that interview, Alvarez noticed that Rodriguez was recording the proceedings on his cell phone. Id., ¶ 23. He then told “[P]laintiff that ‘surreptitiously' recording another officer is a violation of [MTPD] General Order 217.” ECF No. 17-1 (Def. Resp. to Pl. SMF), ¶ 25. That Order states, however, that the recording policy “does not include official sanctioned investigations, ” id., ¶ 26, which are not defined, and the parties dispute whether the interview was part of such an investigation. Id. At the end of the interview, Rodriguez was transferred to administrative leave without pay. Id., ¶ 38.
After consulting with WMATA's in-house counsel, Alvarez and Hanna submitted a report and recommendation to Chief of Police Ronald A. Pavlik, Jr. See Pl. Resp. to Def. SMF, ¶¶ 26, 30. Chief Pavlik agreed with the investigation's findings, including that Plaintiff had failed to seek approval to engage in outside employment while on workers'-compensation leave. Id., ¶ 33. On January 28, 2019, Pavlik fired Rodriguez and issued a Letter of Termination setting forth a summary of his reasons. Id., ¶ 35. Those included Rodriguez's violation of General Orders 217 and 245. See OPRI Report at 159-60.
Plaintiff responded by filing an EEOC charge alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, see ECF No. 10-4 (EEOC Charge), and he received a right-to-sue letter on September 16, 2019. See Compl., ¶ 6. He then filed this lawsuit three months later. Id. Rodriguez alleges that WMATA discriminated on the basis of race, color, and national origin when it discharged him, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 12-401 etseq. (DCHRA). Id., at 1 & ¶¶ 57-73. Defendant now moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff, for his part, opposes that Motion and also cross-moves for summary judgment.
Summary judgment must be granted 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); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A fact is “material” if it is capable of affecting the substantive outcome of the litigation. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248; Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. A dispute is “‘genuine' if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion” by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255; see also Mastro v. PEPCO, 447 F.3d 843, 850 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The Court must “eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The non-moving party's opposition, however, must consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials and must be supported by affidavits, declarations, or other competent evidence, setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The non-movant, in other words, is required to provide evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find in his favor. See Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
WMATA moves for summary judgment on the ground that it terminated Rodriguez for nondiscriminatory reasons - namely, for engaging in unapproved secondary employment while out on workers'-compensation leave, for misleading MTPD about that employment, and for recording the administrative interview. See ECF No. 10-1 (Def. MSJ) at 1-2. Rodriguez counters that there remains a jury question about whether WMATA's stated reasons for his termination are pretext for discrimination, maintaining that Defendant treated similarly situated White employees more favorably and that it has a history of employment discrimination. See ECF No. 13-3 (Pl. Opp.) at 1-5. Rodriguez also contends that he should be the one to whom summary judgment is granted. Id. at 30. Because he makes no substantive argument to support such position, id., the Court focuses its analysis on WMATA's Motion and briefly discusses Rodriguez's at the end of this Opinion.
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The Supreme Court established the three-part burden-shifting framework that governs traditional claims of employment discrimination in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 80205 (1973). Under that framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. When he Chappell-Johnson v. Powell, 440 F.3d 484, 487 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 804) (citation omitted).
When however, “an employee has suffered an adverse employment action and an employer has asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the decision, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial