Sims v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

• Decision Date: 11 August 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:20-cv-01243 (CJN)
• Parties: DERRICK SIMS, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

DERRICK SIMS, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01243 (CJN)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

August 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Derrek Sims sued his former employer, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, alleging race discrimination and other claims regarding his termination. Compl., ECF No. 1. WMATA moves for summary judgment, contending that Sims was terminated for violating its Electronic Device Policy and that it has sovereign immunity as to his other claims. Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 15. Sims does not dispute that he violated WMATA's Electronic Device Policy, but he argues that under WMATA's policies he should have been suspended, not terminated. Pl.'s Opp., ECF No. 17. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.

Background

Sims is an African American male who was employed by WMATA as a bus mechanic. On September 3, 2019 between about 5:30 and 6 A.M., Sims was operating a Metrobus on D.C. Route 295. Investigation Report, ECF No. 15-3; Video of Incident, ECF No. 15-12. While Sims was driving the bus, WMATA Transit Field Supervisor Samuel Laughery observed Sims smoking a cigarette and looking at his phone. Laughery Email, ECF No. 15-4. Video of the incident shows Sims smoking, Sims holding his smartphone in his right hand for a few seconds and glancing at

1

the screen several times, and Laughery's vehicle in the background. Video of Incident (Angle 6). A screenshot of the video is captured below:

(Image Omitted)

Id. at 5:40:03. The phone's activity log did not record any activity during the relevant time period. Pl.'s Opp. at Ex. C.

On September 6, 2019, WMATA terminated Sims' employment. Termination Letter, ECF No. 15-6. WMATA's justification for the termination is that he violated the Electronic Device Policy § 3.09 by operating a bus while “using” his cellphone. Id.

Section 3.09(a) of the policy prohibits “using an electronic device means using the electronic device's functions, such as, but not limited to, viewing, charging, using the electronic device to check the time, or to check to see if any messages have been received.” WMATA Policies, ECF No. 15-2. Section 6.01 provides the discipline for violations of the Electronic Device Policy: “(a) Using an Electronic Device while Operating a Revenue Vehicle, First Offense: Discharge; and (b) Any other violation in Revenue Vehicles (i.e., an operator having a phone on

2

their person while operating) (1) First Offense: 10-day suspension (2) Second Offense: Discharge.” Id. (emphasis added).

Sims filed suit, alleging that WMATA violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974 by terminating his employment, and also alleging that WMATA committed the torts of wrongful termination and negligence relating to his termination. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. WMATA moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Sims was legitimately terminated for violating its Electronic Device Policy and that WMATA has sovereign immunity as to the tort claims.

Legal Standard

A court may grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is not “genuine” unless “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must then set forth “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” to defeat the motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Though the Court “may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the party seeking summary judgment,” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014), the nonmoving party must show more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of” its position, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. In other words, “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for” the non-moving party. Id. (emphasis added). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).

3

It is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “to discriminate on the basis of . . . race or national origin.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a)(1). The two essential elements of a racial discrimination claim are (1) that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (2) because of the plaintiff's race. Brady v. Office of Sergeant of Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 493 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1196 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As to the second element, once an employer asserts a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, the key question is whether the employee produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the employer's asserted reason was not the actual reason. See Brady, 520 F.3d at 494. In relying on comparator evidence to establish an inference of discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate he was “similarly situated” to an employee outside of his protected class and that the two were treated disparately. Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

Analysis

I. No Reasonable Jury Could Find for the Plaintiff on Count I.

WMATA contends that Sims's Title VII claim for racial discrimination should be dismissed because WMATA terminated Sims for a legitimate non-discriminatory reason: his violation of WMATA's Electronic Device Policy. Def.'s Memo., ECF No. 15, at 2-7. WMATA argues that taking action because of an employee's violation a company's policy constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory...