Steele v. Carter

• Decision Date: 29 June 2016
• Docket Number: Civil No. 13-cv-01229 (APM)
• Citation: 192 F.Supp.3d 151
• Parties: Brett STEELE, Plaintiff, v. Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

192 F.Supp.3d 151

Brett STEELE, Plaintiff,

v.Ashton Carter,¹ Secretary of Defense, Defendant.

Civil No. 13-cv-01229 (APM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed June 29, 2016

Donna Williams Rucker, Tully Rinckey PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Derrick Wayne Grace, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Amit P. Mehta, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In August 2010, Plaintiff Dr. Brett Steele, then 47 years old, was hired on a probationary basis as an Associate Professor at the National Defense University's College of International Security Affairs ("CISA"). Plaintiff's first year was not all smooth sailing. Twice, Plaintiff met with his supervisors, who expressed displeasure—sometimes vigorously—with aspects of Plaintiff's teaching strategies and curriculum decisions. Despite these issues, however, Plaintiff felt that his time at CISA had been successful. As a consequence, he was surprised when, in May 2011, he was notified that he would be terminated from his position at the end of the summer semester. Two months later, after CISA refused to provide Plaintiff with a reason for his dismissal, Plaintiff filed an informal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Commission.

In August 2011, after receiving complaints from two employees regarding Plaintiff's behavior, CISA placed Plaintiff on administrative leave with pay, rescinded his security status, and barred him from entering Fort McNair and Fort Bragg, where CISA classes are taught. Several days later, on August 19, 2011, Plaintiff resigned. Plaintiff then filed a formal EEO complaint, alleging that he had been subject to disparate treatment based on age and prior EEO activity, as well as a hostile work environment. Plaintiff's EEO complaint was denied on May 10, 2013. He then filed suit in this court, alleging age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), as well as constructive discharge and a claim for equitable relief.

Before the court is Defendant Ashton Carter's Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. After reviewing the pleadings and the accompanying exhibits, the court will enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all of Plaintiff's claims.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Before turning to the facts, the court explains how it evaluated the record evidence. As required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7(h), Defendant appropriately submitted a statement of facts as to which it contends there is no material dispute. See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 25, Def.'s Mem. in Support of its Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 25-1 [hereinafter Def.'s Mem.], Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, ECF No. 25-2 [hereinafter DSMF]. Plaintiff, however, did not respond pursuant to the requirements of the rule. Instead, he filed both (1) a Statement of Material Facts in Dispute, Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 28 [hereinafter Pl.'s Opp'n], Statement of Material Facts in Dispute, ECF No. 28-1 [hereinafter Pl.'s Disputed Facts], and (2) a Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, Pl.'s Opp'n, Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, ECF No. 28-2 [hereinafter PSMF].

In the latter document, Plaintiff frequently states that a fact proffered by Defendant is "disputed" "to the extent that the Agency is offering th[e] statement" as evidence that Plaintiff "was not terminated because of his age" or "was not placed on administrative leave because of engagement in protected EEO activity." See, e.g. , PSMF ¶¶ 21, 22, 24, 28-30, 32-33. As support for those contentions Plaintiff does not cite record facts, but instead, cross-references paragraphs in his own Statement of Material Facts in Dispute. Often, however, the cross-referenced paragraphs themselves do not contain assertions of fact based on the record evidence. Instead, they contain legal conclusions cast as factual allegations. For instance, Plaintiff offers as a disputed material "fact" that he was "terminated because of his age" or that adverse actions were taken against him "because of his engagement in protected EEO activity." See, e.g. , Pl.'s Disputed Facts ¶¶ 2, 11-13. Such statements, of course, are not assertions of fact, but rather are legal conclusions.

As a consequence of Plaintiff's practice, it has been difficult to separate the facts that are not in genuine dispute from those that are. The court nevertheless has done its best to make that determination. In reciting the facts below, the court cites to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Facts and Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute when the parties expressly agree that facts are not in dispute. It generally cites to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute when Plaintiff has provided no evidence to rebut the undisputed fact stated by Plaintiff. See LCvR 7(h) ("In determining a motion for summary judgment, the Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion."). Otherwise, the court cites directly to the record.

1. CISA's Decision to Hire Plaintiff

In the spring of 2010, Plaintiff Dr. Brett Steele (DOB 1963), then age 47, applied to become a professor at the National Defense University's College of International Security Affairs ("CISA"). DSMF ¶¶ 1, 8; PSMF ¶¶ 1, 8; Am. Compl., ECF No. 16, ¶ 1. CISA serves to provide "interagency and international security education [which] promot[es] a common understanding among agencies, nations, and military services." DSMF ¶ 2; PSMF ¶ 2. It has two campuses—one at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., and one at Fort Bragg in North Carolina—and includes a variety of programs funded by a hodgepodge of sources. DSMF ¶¶ 2-3.

As part of the CISA hiring process, Plaintiff was interviewed twice by multiple professors, including Dr. Alejandra Bolanos and Dr. Querine Hanlon, who were to (and did) serve as first and second level supervisors, respectively, for the new hire. DSMF ¶ 4; PSMF ¶ 4. Plaintiff initially was offered a position at Fort Bragg, which he declined. DSMF ¶ 5; PSMF ¶ 5. He then was offered an Associate Professor position at Fort McNair, which he accepted. DSMF ¶ 5; PSMF ¶ 5. The position was a renewable three-year professorship that was probationary for the first year. DSMF ¶ 8; PSMF ¶ 8. Plaintiff began teaching in August 2010. Am. Compl. ¶ 14.

2. Conflict Involving Plaintiff's Teaching Methods

Over the course of the 2010-2011 academic year, Plaintiff taught or co-taught several classes: Geostrategy; Origins of Conflict in War; Strategic Thought; and Cyber Strategy. DSMF ¶ 9; PSMF ¶ 9. Early in the spring 2011 semester, conflict began to arise between Plaintiff and his supervisors regarding his teaching methods and curriculum decisions. On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff attended a meeting with his supervisors, Dean Hanlon and Dr. Bolanos, who admonished Plaintiff about his use of an unapproved concept in his Strategic Thought sections, as well as his decision to stray from the syllabus he was required to follow. DSMF ¶ 11; PSMF ¶ 11; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 1, Dep. of Brett Steele, ECF No. 28-4 [hereinafter Pl.'s Steele Dep.], at 52-56. As a result of this conversation, Plaintiff "modified his teaching instruction to conform to Dean Hanlon's request." DSMF ¶ 11; PSMF ¶ 11.

Sometime after Plaintiff's meeting with Dean Hanlon, Dr. Bolanos—Plaintiff's first-level supervisor—informed Plaintiff that she had heard that students had complained to Colonel Bell, the Chancellor of CISA, about Plaintiff's instruction. DSMF ¶ 12; PSMF ¶ 12. Shortly thereafter, on March 18, 2011, Plaintiff met with Colonel Bell, Dean Hanlon, and Dr. Bolanos to discuss alleged student and faculty concerns about his teaching methods and his decision to present information to the class that was neither on the syllabus nor the final exam. DSMF ¶ 13; PSMF ¶ 13. Among other issues, the administrators stated that students were concerned that Plaintiff's decision to veer off the syllabus in Strategic Thought would put the students in his section at a disadvantage, because the students were graded by professors from other sections who did not teach that material. DSMF ¶ 13; PSMF ¶ 13. All parties agree that this "academic debate" between Colonel Bell and Plaintiff became heated, with Plaintiff alleging that Colonel Bell "scream[ed] and yell [ed] at [him]," Am. Compl. ¶ 27, and Colonel Bell admitting "I had raised my voice in that meeting to get [Plaintiff's] attention," Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 2, Dep. of Michael Bell, ECF No. 28-5 [hereinafter Pl.'s Bell Dep.], at 11.²

3. Termination of Plaintiff's Employment at CISA

In 2010, the Department of Defense experienced a reduction in its budget. Anticipating that the National Defense University ("NDU") would face a 10 to 15 percent budget cut, the administration determined that CISA, as part of NDU, would need to eliminate three faculty positions.³ PSMF ¶ 15; Pl.'s Bell. Dep. at 34-36, 44-45; Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 25, Def.'s Mem. in Support, ECF No. 25-1 [hereinafter Def.'s Mem.], Ex. 2, Dep. of Michael Bell, ECF No. 25-4 [hereinafter Def.'s Bell Dep.], at 10-14; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 6, Aug. 31, 2012, Fact-Finding Conference [hereinafter Pl.'s Ex. 6], at 117-19. Ultimately, CISA administrators determined that only employees who were on probationary status would be considered and selected for termination. Pl.'s Bell Dep. at 41-42 (testifying that "[CISA] did not look at terminating anyone who was past their probationary year").

NDU sought a waiver to avoid making staff reductions, but learned in May 2011 that the waiver request had been denied. DSMF ¶ 17; PSMF ¶ 17; Def.'s Bell Dep. at 91-92; Pl.'s Bell Dep. at 34. At the time, only six CISA employees definitively held probationary status: Plaintiff...