Taylor v. Geithner
| Decision Date | 06 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-2735,08-2735 |
| Parties | SHERYL TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court is the December 30, 2010 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Timothy F. Geithner ("Geithner"), Secretary of the Treasury.1 (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 53.) ("Def.'s Mots.") Plaintiff Sheryl Taylor ("Taylor") responded in opposition on January 26, 2011. (Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 63.) ("Pl.'s Resp.") Geithner responded to Taylor's counter-statement of material facts on February 11, 2011. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Counter Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 66.) ("Def.'s Reply")
For the following reasons, Geithner's Motion to Dismiss Taylor's breach of settlement agreement claim is GRANTED, and his Motion for Summary Judgment on Taylor's retaliation claim is GRANTED.
Taylor is an employee of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") in Memphis, Tennessee. (See Def.'s Mots. 2-3; Pl.'s Resp. 3.) From July 2004 to September 17, 2006, Taylor worked in a unit supervised by Ethel Shields ("Shields").3 (See Def.'s Mots. 3; Pl.'s Resp. 3.) Before working under Shields' supervision, Taylor filed an equal employment opportunity ("EEO") complaint.4 (See Def.'s Mots. 3; Pl.'s Resp. 3.) Her EEO complaint did not involve Shields. (See Def.'s Mots. 3; Pl.'s Resp. 3.)
On September 3, 2004, Taylor filed a complaint alleging retaliation with the Department of the Treasury. (See Pl.'s Resp. 5; Def.'s Reply 1; Ex. K, ECF No. 63-11.) Shields issued a written warning to Taylor on September 27, 2004, stating that "[r]efusing to follow the chain of command may be considered anact of insubordination and could lead to disciplinary actions."5(See Pl.'s Resp. 5; Def.'s Reply 2; Ex. C, ECF No. 63-3.)
On April 13, 2005, Taylor filed an EEO complaint about a pending three-day suspension.6 (See Def.'s Mots. 4; Pl.'s Resp. 4.) In July 2005, the complaint was resolved by a settlement agreement between Taylor and the IRS. (See Def.'s Mots. 4; Pl.'s Resp. 4; Ex. 7, ECF No. 53-1.) As part of the agreement, the IRS agreed to remove the three-day suspension from Taylor's Time and Attendance record within WebSETR, a time and attendance system used by the IRS,7 by August 5, 2005, and to remove any reference to the suspension from Taylor's employee personnel file. (See Def.'s Mots. 4-5; Pl.'s Resp. 4; Ex. 7, ECF No. 53-1.)
On August 18, 2005, Taylor wrote a letter alleging that the IRS had breached the settlement agreement. (See Def.'s Mots. 5; Pl.'s Resp. 5.) Taylor believed that negative information wascontained in her personnel records in breach of the agreement. (See Def.'s Mots. 5; Pl.'s Resp. 5.) In a final decision dated November 1, 2006, the IRS concluded that the agreement had been breached, but that the agency was in compliance with the agreement at that time. (See Def.'s Mots. 5; Pl.'s Resp. 5; Ex. 9, ECF No. 53-1.) Taylor did not appeal that decision. (See Def.'s Mots. 5; Pl.'s Resp. 5.)
On August 4, 2006, Taylor filed an EEO complaint. (See Def.'s Mots. 3; Pl.'s Resp. 3.) The issues accepted for investigation were whether the IRS retaliated against her when, beginning in May 2004, Shields gave negative references about Taylor to prospective employers, and whether, beginning in May 2006, Shields violated personnel policy by verifying Taylor's employment with prospective employers instead of directing them to the automated work verifier system. (See Def.'s Mots. 3; Pl.'s Resp. 3.)
On May 10, 2007, the IRS received a letter from Taylor dated May 2, 2007, in which Taylor again alleged that the IRS had breached the settlement agreement. (See Def.'s Mots. 5-6; Pl.'s Resp. 5.) The IRS did not issue a decision within 35 days. (See Def.'s Mots. 6; Pl.'s Resp. 5.) Taylor appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which ordered the IRS to conduct an investigation. (See Def.'s Mots. 6; Pl.'s Resp. 5; Ex. 10, ECF No. 53-1.) Taylor requestedreconsideration of the decision, which the EEOC denied on September 10, 2008. (See Def.'s Mots. 6; Pl.'s Resp. 5; Ex. 10, ECF No. 53-1.)
In compliance with the EEOC's order, the IRS conducted another investigation. (See Def.'s Mots. 6; Pl.'s Resp. 5.) A final decision was issued on October 10, 2008, which concluded that the agency was in compliance with the settlement agreement. (See Def.'s Mots. 6; Pl.'s Resp. 5.) The final decision noted that Taylor had failed to appeal the prior decision on her claim of breach of the settlement agreement and that she was attempting to re-litigate the same claim. (See Def.'s Mots. 6; Pl.'s Resp. 5.)
Many of the underlying facts about Taylor's retaliation claim are disputed. The parties agree that, on December 1, 2005, Taylor notified Shields by e-mail that she wanted to participate in a program sponsored by the IRS called the Presidential Classroom. (See Def.'s Mots. 4; Pl.'s Resp. 3.) Shields responded by e-mail as follows:
Sheryl I have not received confirmation that the IRS will participate in the Presidential Classroom program. There are no approvals for travel unless Mission Critical for IRS (SB/SE). I will not provide a letter of recommendation because in my observation you have not demonstrated the skills needed to participate in this program. My concerns are your ability to effectively communicate your meet and deal skills [sic] and your interrelationship skills that I deem necessary for this type of assignment.
(See Def.'s Mots. 4; Pl.'s Resp. 3.) Taylor testified during her deposition that she did not know whether Shields had sent the e-mail to anyone other than her. (See Def.'s Mots. 4; Pl.'s Resp. 3-4; Dep. of Sheryl Taylor 91:16-21, ECF No. 53-1.) After more communication between Shields and Taylor on December 1, 2005, Shields changed her mind and gave Taylor the following recommendation for the Presidential Classroom program:
Ms. Taylor has been in my unit since July 2004 until the present. During this time she has performed her assignments timely. Ms. Taylor's job requires her to sometime [sic] take telephone calls from taxpayers. She is very professional and conscientious when providing the taxpayers with guidance and instructions. Ms[.] Taylor attended a two week Classroom Instructor Training to prepare to instruct classes within the organization. She is scheduled to instruct some classes in the future. Ms. Taylor served as a volunteer for the Combined Federal Campaign and also participated in the Day of Caring this year.
(See Def.'s Mots. 4; Pl.'s Resp. 4.)
According to Geithner, Taylor did not receive any disciplinary actions and received an outstanding performance evaluation while she was under Shields' supervision. (See Def.'s Mots. 3.) Geithner asserts that Taylor hired a company called Document Reference Check ("DRC")8 to solicit Shields' opinion about her work. (See id.) Someone from DRC called Shields, and Taylor was not a party to that conversation. (Seeid.) Geithner also asserts that, on August 4, 2005, Genevle Acklin, an IRS Manager, changed Taylor's information in WebSETR to reflect that she had received a leave of three days without pay instead of a three-day suspension during the period she was absent from work. (See id. at 5.) Nevertheless, WebSETR is programmed to maintain a historical record of personnel actions for twenty-five pay periods, and it is not physically possible for a manager or WebSETR representative to take out all reference to personnel action during that period. (See id.) Geithner also asserts that WebSETR is not programmed to transmit any information from the IRS to the United States Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") and that OPM does not receive information about federal employees while they remain employed by the federal government. (See id.)
According to Taylor, she received disciplinary actions while under Shields' supervision. (See Pl.'s Resp. 3.) On September 27, 2004, Shields gave Taylor a written warning for contacting a director's secretary instead of following the chain of command. (See id.) On April 20, 2005, Shields gave Taylor a written warning for using a cellular phone in the work area. (See id.) On May 9, 2005, the IRS imposed a three-day suspension on Taylor.9 (See id.)
Taylor admits that she asked DRC to contact Shields for references, that Wendy Casey ("Casey") of DRC called Shields, and that Taylor was not a party to the conversation between Shields and Casey. (See id.) Taylor asserts that the settlement agreement between her and the IRS provided that Sarah Neal ("Neal"), an IRS manager, would remove the record of her three-day suspension from her time and attendance file within WebSETR by August 5, 2005. (See id. at 4.) Neal testified during her deposition that Labor Relations would have handled compliance with the promise and that nobody reported back to her whether the promise had been fulfilled. (See id.) Taylor also asserts that OPM does receive information about federal employees before they separate from federal employment, as evidenced by a document in OPM's files on August 9, 2005, about her. (See id.)
In Taylor's second amended complaint, she asserts two claims: (1) retaliation for her complaints about employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a), and (2) breach of the settlement agreement requiring removal of any records of her three-day suspension from her time and attendance file and employee personnel file. (See Second Am. Compl. 4-5, ECF No. 22.) Geithner has moved to dismissTaylor's breach of settlement agreement claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and has moved for summary judgment on Taylor's retaliation claim. (See Def.'s...
To continue reading
Request your trial