Sourgoutsis v. U.S. Capitol Police
| Decision Date | 20 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-cv-1096 (KBJ),16-cv-1096 (KBJ) |
| Parties | CHRISAVGI SOURGOUTSIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff Chrisavgi Sourgoutsis initiated the instant legal action against the United States Capitol Police ("USCP"), alleging that USCP had discriminated and retaliated against her, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as incorporated by the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 105-22.) Sourgoutsis's claims ultimately proceeded to trial, where a jury made three relevant determinations: (1) that Sourgoutsis's sex was a motivating factor in USCP's decision to terminate her; (2) that USCP would have terminated her regardless of any discriminatory motive; and (3) that Sourgoutsis had failed to demonstrate that USCP had retaliated against her for cooperating in an internal investigation. (See Verdict Form, ECF No. 138, at 1-2.)1 After the jury rendered its verdict, and also after the Clerk of Court entered judgment in USCP's favor, Sourgoutsis filed motions for an amended judgment and a permanent injunction (see Pl.'s Mot. to Amend Clerk's J., ECF No. 154; Pl.'s Mot. for Inj. Relief, ECF No. 142),both of which this Court denied .
Before this Court at present is Sourgoutsis's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, which seeks a total award of $218,033.04. (See Pl.'s Renewed Pet. for an Award of Att'ys' Fees & Bill of Costs ("Pl.'s Mot. for Fees"), ECF No. 176, at 19; Pl.'s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Fees, ECF No. 178, at 11.) In her motion, Sourgoutsis contends that she is entitled to this fee award under Title VII, because her lawsuit exposed USCP's discrimination and prompted the police department to adopt various measures aimed at preventing future discrimination and harassment. (See Pl.'s Mot. for Fees at 5-7.) USCP opposes Sourgoutsis's request for fees, arguing that "any success [Sourgoutsis] achieved in this litigation was minimal" and that her lawsuit neither advanced the relevant body of case law nor served a "larger public purpose." (Def.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Fees ("Def.'s Opp'n"), ECF No. 177, at 7.)
This Court has carefully reviewed the parties' submissions and the record evidence in this case, and for the reasons explained fully below, it has determined that Sourgoutsis's limited degree of success in this litigation does not justify an award of fees. Therefore, Sourgoutsis's motion for attorneys' fees and costs must be DENIED. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.
Sourgoutsis worked at USCP from May of 2014 to December of 2015. (See Trial Tr. 1001:23-25, 1615:4-6.) When Sourgoutsis first joined the police force, she was required—like all newly appointed officers—to be on probation for an eighteen-month period, during which time she was to complete training programs and gain critical field experience while USCP evaluated her performance. (See id. at 124:15-125:1, 1002:10-13.) From the very beginning, Sourgoutsis's probationary period was marked with significant volatility. Indeed, while she passed the requisite training programs and earned positive performance reviews (see id. at 176:8-22, 643:2-5), she also incurred a number of disciplinary infractions for violating USCP's rules. For instance, during the first six months of her employment with USCP, Sourgoutsis received seven disciplinary rule violations for, among other things, failing to wear the required uniform, using her cell phone in a prohibited area, and cursing. (See id. at 148:15-21, 1063:15-1064:23.) USCP also cited Sourgoutsis later in the probationary period for failing to wear her police uniform shirt and badge, and for neglecting her assigned responsibilities by "lounging" on a retaining wall while on duty. (Id. at 292:3-9; see also id. at 149:13-150:6, 154:13-155:15, 728:13-20.)
At the same time that USCP was evaluating Sourgoutsis's performance as a probationary officer, USCP had also initiated an unrelated internal investigation into one of her supervisors, who had been accused of violating USCP's anti-harassment policy. (See id. at 868:8-13; see also id. at 658:21-25, 659:16-17.) USCP's Office of Professional Responsibility interviewed Sourgoutsis about her experience with the supervisor as part of its investigative process, and Sourgoutsis reported that thesupervisor had exhibited various inappropriate behaviors toward female employees. (See id. at 880:17-19, 882:6-9.)
A few months after Sourgoutsis's interview with the Office of Professional Responsibility—and shortly before the end of her probationary period—USCP notified Sourgoutsis of its intent to terminate her employment. (See id. at 670:9-13; see also id. at 421:3-5, 857:20-858:1.) In a letter that the Chief of Police issued regarding Sourgoutsis's proposed termination, the Chief explained that Sourgoutsis's "prior sustained disciplinary actions and documented history of unacceptable conduct and behavior demonstrate that she does not meet the standards for retention as a sworn employee of the USCP." (Mem. Regarding Termination Recommendation for Private with Training Chrisavgi Sourgoutsis, ECF No. 32-4, at 22.) The Capitol Police Board approved the Chief of Police's decision (id.), and Sourgoutsis was terminated on December 29, 2015 (Trial Tr. 1616:25-1617:2). Sourgoutsis then challenged her termination by filing requests for counseling and mediation with the United States Congress's Office of Compliance (see End of Mediation Notice, ECF No. 38, at 4); however, she was unable to resolve these disputes through the administrative process (see id.).
Sourgoutsis initiated the instant legal action against USCP on June 13, 2016, asserting two claims under Title VII, as incorporated into the Congressional Accountability Act. (See Compl. ¶¶ 109-12, 120-22.) In her complaint, Sourgoutsis alleged that USCP had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex when it disciplined her for "minor infractions" and terminated her employment. (Id. ¶¶ 109-12.) Sourgoutsis further alleged that her termination amounted to unlawful retaliationfor participating in the internal investigation of her supervisor. (Id. ¶¶ 120-22.) As relief, Sourgoutsis sought (1) "[r]einstatement or, in lieu thereof, full front pay, stock options and benefits"; (2) "[e]conomic damages for lost compensation and damages to [her] career, reputation, and earning capacity"; (3) compensatory damages for "pain and suffering, emotional distress and reputational damage"; and (4) reasonable litigation costs, attorneys' fees, and experts' fees. (Id., Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ a-d.)
Sourgoutsis's claims proceeded to trial, where both parties presented arguments and evidence to a jury. Over the course of the eight-day trial, Sourgoutsis provided examples of USCP's failure to apply its internal policies consistently (see Trial Tr. 1547:7-1550:4); highlighted the records of male officers who had committed similar misconduct during their probationary periods but allegedly did not experience the same repercussions (see id. at 1545:14-1546:21); and emphasized the short timespan between her participation in the internal investigation and USCP's decision to recommend her termination (see id. at 1552:15-1553:25). For its part, USCP elicited testimony from numerous officers regarding Sourgoutsis's disciplinary issues and her inability to conform her behavior to USCP's expectations and standards. (See id. at 1564:20-1565:3; see also id. at 160:19-21, 1420:3-24.) USCP also underscored the fact that none of the other witnesses who testified in the internal investigation were terminated. (See id. at 1113:10-13, 1590:9-21.)
On November 18, 2019, the jury rendered its verdict in the case. (Verdict Form at 2.) On a Special Verdict form that the Court provided, the jury specifically determined, as most relevant here, that: (1) Sourgoutsis's sex was a motivating factor in USCP's decision to fire her; (2) USCP had demonstrated by a preponderance of theevidence that it would have terminated Sourgoutsis even if it had not taken her sex into consideration; and (3) Sourgoutsis had failed to prove that USCP had terminated her in retaliation for participating in the internal investigation. (Id. at 1-2.) After the jury rendered its verdict, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in USCP's favor. (See J. on the Verdict, ECF No. 144, at 1.)2
Sourgoutsis subsequently moved for both an amended judgment and a permanent injunction against USCP. (See Pl.'s Mot. to Amend Clerk's J. at 1; Pl.'s Mot. for Inj. Relief at 1.) With respect to the request for an amended judgment, Sourgoutsis argued that the judgment had failed to reflect accurately the jury's finding that USCP had discriminated against her, and she asked the Court to alter the judgment to make clear that USCP had unlawfully considered her sex as a motivating factor in its termination decision. (See Pl.'s Mot. to Amend Clerk's J. at 2, 5.) With respect to the request for a permanent injunction, Sourgoutsis insisted that USCP was at serious risk of discriminating against female employees in the future, and she urged the Court to require USCP to take affirmative steps to end its discriminatory behavior. (See Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Inj. Relief, ECF No. 142-1, at 2-4.) This Court denied both of Sourgoutsis's requests, finding that the judgment correctly stated the jury's verdict (see Mem. Op. & Order Denying Pl.'s Mots. for Decl. J. & for Amendment of Clerk's J. at 7), and that the evidence presented at trial did not support Sourgoutsis's assertionsregarding the need for...
To continue reading
Request your trial