St. John v. Napolitano
| Decision Date | 05 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10–216 BAH |
| Citation | 20 F.Supp.3d 74 |
| Parties | Samuel St. John, Plaintiff, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Jennifer I. Klar, Tara K. Ramchandani, Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Jeremy S. Simon, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
The plaintiff, Samuel St. John, filed this employment discrimination action when his superiors decided against promoting him from Acting Director to Permanent Director after observing him for one year functioning in the Acting role. The plaintiff alleges the defendant's decision not to promote him was discriminatory and retaliatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 633a, et seq. Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ¶¶ 1, 7, ECF No. 38. The defendant counters that the plaintiff was not promoted for performance reasons. Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.'s Mem. Supp.”) at 18, ECF No. 44. Pending before the Court is the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 44. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion will be granted.
The plaintiff is a Hispanic man of Mexican national origin born in 1953. SAC ¶ 11; Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Def.'s Mot. Summ J. (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 2, ECF No. 52. He worked in what is now the Department of Homeland Security from 1982 until his retirement in 2010. See SAC ¶¶ 14–16, 32.
In 1982, the plaintiff became an immigration inspector for the Immigration and Naturalization Service where he “processed applicants for admission” and “interviewed them in Spanish.” Dep. of Samuel St. John (“Pl.'s Dep.”), Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 16 at 12:5–16, ECF No. 52–3. After five years, the plaintiff moved his employment to the U.S. Customs Service in El Paso, Texas, where he served in a variety of positions for three years. See id. 15:2–16:22. In 1991, the plaintiff was transferred to Customs Headquarters as a Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture Specialist, a position in which he served for another five years. Pl.'s Aff. Statement of Material Facts (“Pl.'s SMF”) at ¶ 3 ECF No. 52. In 1996, the plaintiff moved to the Office of Commercial Operations,1 where he served as a field operations specialist working on international trade agreements. Pl.'s Dep. at 25:3–21, ECF No. 52–3.
While working as a field operations specialist, between 1997 and 2001, the plaintiff applied for several GS–14 positions but was not promoted. Id. at 27:16–22. The plaintiff filed “some EEO complaints,” beginning in 1997, approximately a year and a half after he began working as a field operations specialist. See id. at 24:22–25:2 (); Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 48 () at 277, ECF No. 52–4 (). The plaintiff subsequently filed additional EEO complaints on May 4, 1998, October 29, 1998, and December 2, 1998. See Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 48 generally. A common theme in these complaints concerned the fairness of the panels that did not select him for promotion to the GS–14 level due to alleged retaliation by the employee “who determines the make-up of the rating pannel [sic].” Id. at 280; id. at 282 (); id. at 284 ().
In April 1999, the plaintiff was promoted to a GS–14 level customs inspector in the CBP's Office of Internal Affairs.2 He remained in that position until he joined the Container Security Initiative (“CSI”) in 2004. See Pl.'s SMF ¶ 8. CSI is one of nine programs in the Cargo and Conveyance Security (“CCS”) division, which is part of the CBP's Office of Field Operations. Supplemental Declaration of Todd Owen (“Owen Supp. Decl.”) ¶¶ 1–2, ECF No. 44–5. Other CCS programs relevant to this case include the Customs–Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (“C–TPAT”) and Secure Freight Initiative (“SFI”), the directors of which reported to the Executive Director of CCS, Todd Owen (“Owen”). Id. at ¶ 2.
The CSI is designed to “target and screen high-risk containers of cargo before they depart from foreign ports in order to stop threats to the security of the supply chain. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 6; see also Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (“Def.'s SMF”) ¶ 7, ECF No. 44. “CSI is a partnership with foreign governments that permit CBP and DHS personnel ... to be present at 58 foreign ports.”
Owen Supp. Decl. ¶ 7. C–TPAT is a larger program that works primarily with the “private sector trade community” to inspect “all aspects of the compan[ies'] supply chain.” Id. at ¶ 5. Where C–TPAT addresses all parts of supply chain security, CSI focuses on “one node of the supply chain—targeting high risk cargo and the screening of that cargo before it is loaded on U.S. bound vessels.” Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7.
The plaintiff was chosen to join CSI by Allen Gina, then the “Senior Executive Service level Executive Director of CSI,” Pl.'s SMF ¶ 8, because, inter alia, the plaintiff was viewed as “very competent, very conscientious.” Dep. of Allen Gina, (“Gina Dep.”), Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 17, ECF No. 52–3 at 78:15. Within a year of his joining CSI, he was promoted to Branch Chief of Strategic Planning and Development “for the same reasons ... why we hired him.” Id. at 81:17–82:3. As branch chief, the plaintiff supervised between ten and fifteen people. Id. at 93:1–3. During his CSI tenure, the plaintiff consistently received perfect performance ratings from his supervisors. See Pl.'s SMF ¶ 14; Pl.'s Opp'n, Exs. 9, 20, 21, ECF Nos. 52–3; 52–4.
In December 2007, the plaintiff was appointed Acting Director of CSI “after that position was temporarily vacated by Marsha Wiggins.” Def.'s SMF ¶ 13. According to Wiggins, the plaintiff was appointed Acting Director because he “knew the program ... [and] had acted [as Director temporarily] before.” Dep. of Marsha Wiggins (“Wiggins Dep.”), Def.'s Mot. Dismiss Ex. 6 at 90:16–17, ECF No. 44–7. Notably, Wiggins opined that any of the three branch chiefs (of which the plaintiff was one) “would have been expected to be able to step into [the] role,” but one branch chief was an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Agent on temporary detail to CBP, Def.'s SMF ¶ 15, and another had “a much broader responsibility” than the plaintiff. Wiggins Dep. at 90:8–16, ECF No. 44–7. Wiggins therefore considered the plaintiff to “be the logical recommendation” for Acting Director. Id. at 90:17–18. The plaintiff's second level supervisor, Owen, as Executive Director of CCS, approved Wiggins' recommendation. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 18, Dep. of Todd Owen (“Owen Dep.”), Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 4 at 53:10–11, ECF No. 52–3. According to Owen, Wiggins “indicated [the plaintiff] was the strongest of the branch chiefs” within CSI. Id. at 53:1–9.
The plaintiff served as the Acting Director of CSI for approximately one year. Pl's SMF ¶¶ 18–19. During that time, the plaintiff's supervisor noted at least eight separate occasions when the plaintiff was notified of a deficiency in his performance. See Def.'s Reply Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (“Def's Reply”) at 2–4, ECF No. 55. None of these deficiencies, however, rose to the level of requiring that the plaintiff be removed from his Acting position. Owen Dep. at 116:9–10, ECF No. 52–3. Owen told the plaintiff he was generally satisfied with the plaintiff's management of the CSI program, id. at 144:2–5, and approved a cash bonus award of $2,000 to reflect the plaintiff's “competent” management of CSI while the plaintiff was Acting Director. See Owen Supp. Decl. ¶ 24. This bonus amount awarded to the plaintiff was only half the bonus given to several other employees whom Owen supervised and were in equivalent positions to the plaintiff. Id.
The defendant's concerns with the plaintiff surfaced almost immediately after the plaintiff began his temporary assignment as Acting Director. In an email, dated February 2, 2008, less than two months after the plaintiff was named acting director, Richard DiNucci (“DiNucci”), the Director of the SFI (another CCS program), emailed the plaintiff's then direct supervisor, Owen, complaining that the plaintiff Declaration of Frislanda Goldfeder (“Goldfeder Decl.”) Ex. J at 87, ECF No. 44–3. Owen had to step in and direct the plaintiff “to assist SFI.” Owen Supp. Decl. ¶ 23. Apparently, the problem was ongoing; the subject line of the email exchange between Owen and DiNucci was “SFI CSI Again.” Goldfeder Decl. Ex. J. at 87.
Two weeks later, on February 17, 2008, Owen emailed the plaintiff that Owen should have been notified in a timely manner about a hospitalized CSI officer, instead of learning about the situation almost a week later through other channels. Goldfeder Decl. Ex. N at 101, ECF No. 44–3. A similar situation arose in April, 2008, when Owen told the plaintiff, in reference to a CSI employee being sent home early from an overseas temporary duty assignment due...
To continue reading
Request your trial