Thomas v. Moreland

• Docket Number: Civil Action 18-800 (TJK)
• Decision Date: 06 November 2023
• Parties: JEFFREY THOMAS, JR., Plaintiff, v. CRYSTAL MORELAND, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

1

JEFFREY THOMAS, JR., Plaintiff, v. CRYSTAL MORELAND, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 18-800 (TJK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

November 6, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Timothy J. Kelly United States District Judge

Over five years ago, Jeffrey Thomas, Jr. sued Crystal Moreland for allegedly defaming him by reporting his conduct to their employer when the two worked together. The parties then fought tooth and nail over the scope of this case's protective order, motions to compel discovery, motions for sanctions, and more. After Moreland moved for summary judgment, Thomas moved to voluntarily dismiss the case. But it was a false alarm-he withdrew his motion. Now, Moreland renews her summary-judgment motion. Thomas opposes, and also moves for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). There is no reason to prolong these proceedings any further. As explained below, the Court will deny Thomas's motion, grant Moreland's, and enter summary judgment for Moreland.

I. Background

The dispute at the center of this case begins with Thomas's unusual request to work for the Humane Society Legislative Fund (“HSLF”), the legislative and political organization affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”). ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 1, 4 7. In 2016, Thomas was a “major donor” who had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to HSUS. Id. ¶ 5. Even so, he proposed to HSUS working as a policy analyst for a starting annual salary of $35,000 in exchange for $50,000 annual donations. Id. ¶ 7. In early 2017, then-CEO of HSUS Wayne Pacelle accepted the proposal and hired Thomas. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12. Thomas began his work with the organization in February 2017, and during his employment, he reported to, among others, Sara Amundson, then-Executive Director and Senior Vice President of HLSF. Id. ¶¶ 13-14; ECF No. 198-11 ¶ 3.

Through Thomas's work for HSUS, he met Moreland. During the time relevant to this litigation, Moreland was the Programs Advisor and Special Assistant to the President and CEO- Pacelle. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 2. When Thomas joined HSUS, Moreland knew that Thomas was a donor and of the “prospective donations-for-employment arrangement.” Id. ¶ 8. Moreland did not directly supervise Thomas. Id. ¶15. Thomas and Moreland were also situated close to one another in the HSUS office. See ECF No. 203-7 (floorplan showing Moreland's office relative to Thomas's cubicle); ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 24, 110. And Moreland's office had a transparent glass wall such that Thomas could look inside it while near his cubicle, and one occasion take photographs. See ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 24, 218; ECF No. 209-8 (photograph).

On April 5, 2017, Moreland entered the women's bathroom while Thomas waited nearby for her to exit. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 25. Once she did, Thomas approached her, and they spoke at length. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Later that day, Thomas emailed Moreland, providing his phone number and telling her that he “can give free rides to sweet pups” (a reference to Moreland's dog, Dre) and that “it's never too early, late or trivial to call or text to chat or to get help.” Id. ¶ 27; ECF No. 198-27. The next day, Thomas emailed Moreland once more, stating, “Talking . . . was awesome! Thank you! I'm so glad there is someone like you in the organization.” ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 28; ECF No 198-28. Moreland responded: “It's the first night I've gone home smiling in a very long time! I am so happy we got to do it and hope for many more in the future too. Greatly appreciate you, [Thomas] and so happy you are here!” ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 29; ECF No. 198-28. Moreland then gave Thomas her phone number. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 29; ECF No. 198-28.

So began a monthslong series of communications by text between Thomas and Moreland. Thomas texted Moreland first, about 20 minutes after receiving her number on April 6, 2017. See ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 28-29; ECF No. 198-19 at 11. The two then exchanged several dozen texts between April 6 and July 21, 2017. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 31; ECF No. 198-19. Among other things, their texts reflect that at least once Thomas offered to give Moreland a ride home and more than once asked if she wanted to go on a walk with Dre. See, e.g., ECF No. 198-19 at 7 (“This time next Sunday would be a perfect time for a walk and talk with Dre if you're in town! The magic hour[.]”); id. at 3 (“Happy to give you and Dre a ride home.”); id. (“How do you and Dre feel about going for a walk tomorrow?”).

According to Moreland, though, Thomas was engaging in a “pattern of behavior that made [her] uncomfortable.” ECF No. 198-5 at 17-18; ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 39-42, 48. For instance, Moreland expressed concerns that Thomas took an “excessive interest in the organization, [was] mischaracterizing things he was observing in the workplace, and just having a fixation on probing questions about an array of topics throughout the organization.” ECF No. 198-5 at 16. In Moreland's view, Thomas would “seek[] out problems within the organization,” which she thought could suggest “opposition to the Humane Society, given the controversial topics that the organization works on.” Id. at 18. Beyond his conduct aimed at Humane Society, Moreland also testified that Thomas had “excessive interests about [her] specifically,” and “follow[ed] [her] around the organization, attempting to get in one-on-one conversations.” Id. at 17; see also id. at 25 (Moreland testifying that Thomas was “observing . . . everything that [she] was doing, whether it related to work or conversations that [she] was having in [her] office, and just his excessive interest, following m[e] around, you know, staying for hours that [she] felt were probably outside of his working duties, just because [she] was there”).

Moreland first raised such concerns about Thomas, including about HSUS's information security, with HSUS's Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) shortly after he began working at HSUS. ECF No. 198-5 at 26-28; ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 49, 100; ECF No. 198-7 at 41. In a subsequent investigation, HSUS searched for whether there were any recording devices, keyloggers, or other evidence that Thomas was spying on Moreland, but found none. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 50; ECF No. 198-7 at 21-22. Moreland later met with OGC on September 17, 2017, about her concerns with Thomas, and then also provided her cellphone to OGC for imaging. ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 51-52.

On September 28, 2017, Ursula Norbert, then-Director of Employee Relations and Recruitment in the HSUS Human Resources (“HR”) department, called Moreland to discuss her concerns. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 54. She spoke with Moreland in her official HR capacity. Id. ¶ 55. Moreland testified that, at the time, she did not know the reason for Norbert's call, and so first thought it had to do with hiring her replacement, because she would soon be moving to California. ECF No. 198-5 at 48-49; ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 56. But once Norbert asked about Thomas, Moreland expressed her concerns about Thomas's conduct in the workplace, including toward her personally, and potentially in opposition to HSUS. See ECF No. 198-5 at 49-50; ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 59. Only Moreland and Norbert were present for the roughly two-and-a-half-hour-long conversation. See ECF No. 198-5 at 49; ECF No. 198-17 at 2; ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 65. Moreland says she did not have her computer or phone during the meeting. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 58. And only Norbert took notes, which were not a verbatim recording of what Moreland, a fast talker, said. Id. ¶¶ 60-61; ECF No. 198-17.

At least at that time, Moreland did not review the notes for accuracy. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 62.

After Norbert and Moreland's meeting, Norbert and Amundson met with Thomas on October 12, 2017, to discuss what Moreland had told Norbert. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 74. Norbert testified that the purpose “was not punitive at all” but was to “hav[e] a conversation with him” because they “wanted him to be successful with the organization.” ECF No. 198-8 at 15-16. Norbert also testified that, during the conversation, Thomas behaved “unprofessional[ly],” “blew up,” got “very loud,” and threw a “tantrum.” ECF No. 209-3 ¶¶ 79-80; ECF No. 198-8 at 17-19. After their meeting, Thomas emailed Norbert, accusing her of “hostility.” ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 81.

Thomas also requested that Moreland's “accusations” be set out in writing. ECF No. 209-3 ¶ 83. As he requested, on October 13, 2017, Jill Little, HSUS's Senior Vice President of Human Capital and Development, emailed Thomas with a bulleted list summarizing Moreland's comments to Norbert. Id. ¶ 84. After emphasizing that there had “been no determination made that [Thomas] violated any policy or engaged in harassment,” her email provided in relevant part:

[Moreland's] complaint alleges that the following incidents have occurred over the course of the past seven months and that they have made her feel very uncomfortable and intimidated:

o You asked her if she had slept with Wayne [Pacelle];

o You have repeatedly asked her to lunch and dinner;

o When she did agree to go to dinner with you once, you became upset with her because she could only stay for 90 minutes;

o You have repeatedly asked if you could drive her home;

o You asked her why she was in the hospital;

o You followed her around the office (to the breakroom restroom, and in the hallways) after she returned from the hospital;

o You texted her and asked if you could bring food to her house and asked who was looking after her; you then sent her another text stating that you had dropped food off in her lobby (no food was there);

o You texted her multiple times asking her to go for a walk; o You texted her on the night of Ryan Ososki's happy hour while she was drinking a glass of wine that Tracie gave her stating “since you're drinking now, do you want me to drive you home?” [Moreland] said that she looked around the

...