Smith v. Vilsack

Decision Date02 June 2011
Docket NumberCivil Action No. DKC 10–2306.
Citation832 F.Supp.2d 573
PartiesEileen Y. SMITH v. Thomas J. VILSACK.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Eileen Y. Smith, Bowie, MD, pro se.

Thomas H. Barnard, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Thomas J. Vilsack.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination action is a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by Defendant Thomas J. Vilsack.1 (ECF No. 7). The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion will be granted.

I. BackgroundA. Factual Background

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are uncontroverted. Smith has offered general allegations contesting some of Vilsack's proffered facts, but she failed to offer admissible evidence in support of those allegations. Consequently, Vilsack's facts are largely treated as undisputed for purposes of this motion. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2)-(3).

Before July 2006, Plaintiff Eileen Smith worked for the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) as a Program Facility/Director and California Sterile Insect Technique Coordinator in Los Alamitos, California. Smith's position was part of the Western Region of the Plant Protection and Quarantine division of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”). In July 2006, Western Regional Director Phillip Garcia reassigned her to a new position because of “organizational conflicts.” (ECF No. 7–7, Garcia Dep., at 8). Smith then became Regional Program Manager (“RPM”) within the same division but remained in California.

For her first three months as an RPM, Steve Johnson supervised Smith. In September 2006, Senior Regional Program Manager Judy Pasek replaced Johnson as Smith's supervisor. Sherry Sanderson, who was then supervised by Garcia, supervised Pasek. All of Smith's superiors were stationed in Fort Collins, Colorado.

1. Training and Travel

While working as an RPM, Smith was offered several training opportunities. In January 2007, for example, Smith was authorized to take an irradiation training course. A month later, in February 2007, she attended an agroterrorism training course. From February 2007 to May 2007, Smith completed a 90–day temporary duty assignment in Riverdale, Maryland as part of a leadership program.

While on temporary duty in Maryland, she also received training at an APHIS Safety and Health Conference in Kansas City, Missouri in April 2007. Smith states that she had a meeting with Garcia during her trip that did not go well. In particular, Smith maintains that Garcia told her she had “no future in the Agency or even in the western region” and that she would “have to start over.” (ECF No. 7–4, Smith Dep., at 20–21). Garcia denies making any such statement.

After her temporary duty in Maryland ended, Smith travelled to Fort Collins for two weeks, from July 8 to July 20. There, she received additional training on websites and data analysis. During the trip, on July 16, she also met again with her supervisors, Pasek, Sanderson, and Garcia. After talking with her about her role and responsibilities, they asked her to return to Fort Collins for a 30–day temporary duty assignment to help her better understand the regional office. Smith “pretty much left open” the question of when she would return, as she needed to attend certain medical appointments every two weeks over the next several months. (ECF No. 7–4, Smith Dep., at 37).

The next day, on July 17, Smith requested permission to attend an Avian Influenza Conference in Bethesda, Maryland. Pasek denied her request for the training, as she felt Smith had “other priorities for work assignments and travel.” (ECF No. 7–5, Report of Investigation (“ROI”), at 237). A week later, on July 24, Smith emailed Pasek and explained that she wanted to attend another course—a three-day American Management Association (“AMA”) training course in August costing over $1,600. Pasek denied the request, as her budget provided for only $1,200 in training for each individual and Smith had already received $1,800 in training for the year. When Pasek told her that the training request was denied, Smith revealed that she had already purchased the program with her government credit card and believed that the fee was non-refundable.2 On August 1, Smith renewed her request to attend the Avian Influenza Conference, but Pasek again denied it, as she felt it was important that Smith complete her 30–day temporary duty assignment in Fort Collins first. Around the same time, Pasek suggested that Smith could break her 30–day visit into smaller trips to avoid conflicts with Smith's medical appointments.

After taking three days of medical leave in August, Smith returned to work and began pressing her request to attend the Avian Influenza Conference once more. On August 30, for instance, Smith informed Pasek and Sanderson that she intended to approach the EEOC about the denial of her training request. In an August 31 telephone call with Pasek, Smith again raised the issue of the Avian Influenza Conference; Pasek refused to change her decision. During the same call, Smith insisted that she would not come to Fort Collins until 2008 because Pasek had denied her request to attend the Avian Influenza Conference.

The day after her telephone conversation with Pasek, Smith emailed Pasek, Sanderson, and Garcia.3 The email reiteratedthat she felt the Avian Influenza Conference related to her job responsibilities. Smith also said:

So until you make some effort to understand or learn to ask me for information before just deciding without understanding, we will just continue to be dysfunctional and disagreeable ... which I find so unproductive, unreasonable and ridiculous, but that apparently is how you all want to operate ... to find fault with everything

I say or try to do ... and to use my medical and EEO situations against me ... and prevent me from attaining anything related to my performance elements ... I already anticipate that my end of the year evaluation will be very contentious ... pretty sad state of affairs ...

And so there is no misunderstanding, and as I stated over the phone, I will not be coming to Colorado anytime before January at the earliest ... also, I would like to be provided with exactly what I will be doing over a 30 day period because I don't see this time period to be very productive either ... all of this is a good example of this ... reading emails, documents, and giving an opinion and drawing pretty pictures with data off various websites is not my idea of a good time or even being remotely constructive ... all of this and coming to Colorado for 30 days is apparently just a reason to be continually serving out Phil's life sentence because of the bogus circumstances of last year.

(ECF No. 7–5, ROI, at 250 (ellipses and bold in original)).

Pasek determined that the August 31 email merited a letter of caution in response. Accordingly, after consulting with Human Resources, Pasek sent Smith such a letter on September 7, 2007. The letter warned Smith that (1) the tone of her email was inappropriate and disrespectful, (2) she inappropriately went outside the chain of command in sending the email to Sanderson and Garcia, and (3) she wrongfully disregarded management decisions in refusing to travel to Colorado until January 2008. Smith refused to sign the acknowledgement indicating that she had received the letter, as she felt her comments were taken out of context. Nevertheless, she apologized for the email and explained that she did not wish to be disrespectful or inappropriate.

Following the issuance of the letter of caution, Smith received some additional training. In October 2007, for example, she received ethics training. Later, in February 2008, she attended classroom training in Oklahoma City. She was not permitted to attend the National Biocontrol Meeting in Colorado because, according to Pasek, [t]ravel to that conference was limited to two people per state ... [a]nd biocontrol was not a program area that [Smith] had direct responsibility for.” (ECF No. 7–6, Pasek Dep., at 46).

2. Application for GS–13 Agriculturist Position

Also in 2007, Smith applied for an Agriculturist (Assistant Trade Director) position within the Phytosanitary Issues Management (“PIM”) Staff. The position, a GS–13 position, was advertised in a vacancy announcement running from June 11 to July 2, 2007. The selecting official was Craig Fedchock, who received assistance in evaluating the applications from Fan–Li Chou, John Tyrone Jones, and Jennifer Lemly; Michael Guidicipietro also discussed the selection with Fedchock. Neither Fedchock nor Guidicipietro were aware of Smith's prior EEO activity at the time the selection was made.

Fedchock ultimately selected Judith Machias, a woman, for the agriculturalist position on August 22, 2007. Fedchock chose Machias because her experience and qualifications exceeded that of the other candidates. In particular, Machias “had extensive experience working at the field level on many of the issues facing the PIM staff.” (ECF No. 7–5, ROI, at 90). Machias' application confirms that she possessed significant trade-related experience. (ECF No. 7–5, ROI, at 161–190).

In the end, however, Smith was able to secure a new position in February 2008 as a national program manager. She was then stationed in Riverdale, Maryland. 4

B. Procedural Background

Smith filed an administrative complaint in November 2006 asserting claims not at issue in the present case, principally relating to a decision by Garcia to transfer her to a different position.5 She then filed a new complaint, raising seven new issues, on May 15, 2007 (with an amendment following on September 24, 2007). The administrative judge decided to consolidate one of the issues in this new complaint...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Short v. Berryhill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 24 Septiembre 2019
    ...2018 WL6031173, at *5 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2018); Silah v. Burwell, 244 F. Supp. 3d 499, 517 (D. Md. 2017); Smith v. Vilsack, 832 F. Supp. 2d 573, 583 (D. Md. 2011). Short does not "allege that she received lower pay, was demoted, was passed over for a promotion, failed to receive a bonus, or g......
  • Adams v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 21 Mayo 2014
    ...Hoyle, supra, 650 F.3d at 337 (quoting Yashenko v. Harrah's Casino, 446 F.3d 541, 551 (4th Cir. 2006)); see Smith v. Vilsack, 832 F. Supp. 2d 573, 584 (D. Md. 2011) ("'[A] plaintiff demonstrates pretext by showing the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reason is a lie and the real reaso......
  • Brown v. Bratton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 21 Febrero 2020
    ...evaluation would not dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination); Smith v. Vilsack, 832 F. Supp. 2d 573, 583 (D. Md. 2011). Similarly, Mr. Brown's meeting with Ms. Bratton does not give rise to a plausible retaliation claim. Plaintiff alleges that fo......
  • Hemphill v. Aramark Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 25 Marzo 2014
    ...even a pro se party may not avoid summary judgment by relying on bald assertions and speculative arguments." Smith v. Vilsack, 832 F. Supp. 2d 573, 580 (D. Md. 2011). Plaintiff's complaint does not expressly allege that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. However, to the extent ......
  • 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