Thomas v. Securiguard Inc.

• Citation: 412 F.Supp.3d 62
• Decision Date: 30 September 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-0125 (ABJ)
• Parties: Kalisha THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. SECURIGUARD INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

412 F.Supp.3d 62

Kalisha THOMAS, Plaintiff,

v.SECURIGUARD INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 18-0125 (ABJ)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 30, 2019

Leslie David Alderman, III, Savanna Lee Shuntich, Alderman, Devorsetz & Hora PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Jaclyn L. West Hamlin, John B. Flood, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Kalisha Thomas brought this action against Securiguard, Inc., her former employer, claiming that she was subjected to sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. (2012), and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C. Code § 2-1401 et seq. Securiguard is a private contractor that provides security services at buildings including federal office buildings. During her employment with Securiguard, plaintiff worked as a Special Police Officer ("SPO") at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, home of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AOUSC"). Plaintiff alleges that an employee of the Administrative Office, John Glover, who was also stationed at the Marshall Building, sexually harassed her on a near daily basis. She claims that after she reported Glover's conduct to her superiors, she experienced additional discrimination and retaliation.

Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all counts. Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 20] ("Def.'s Mot."). It argues, among other things, that the conduct at issue was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, and that it has supplied legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for all of the actions it took. Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 20-3] ("Def.'s Mem."). Plaintiff opposed the motion. Pl.'s Opp. to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 24] ("Pl.'s Opp.").

While this is a close case, and plaintiff may face significant challenges at trial, the Court will deny in part and grant in part defendant's motion for summary judgment since the issues in dispute are questions of fact that must be decided by a jury.

BACKGROUND

In September 2015, Securiguard Inc. ("SGI" or "defendant") was awarded a contract to provide physical security services at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (the "Marshall Building"), located at One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20544. Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [Dkt. # 20-1] ("Def.'s SUMF") ¶ 1. This contract provided for both stationary and roving security officers in the building. Id. ¶ 3.

Plaintiff Kalisha Thomas ("plaintiff" or "Thomas") was an armed SPO who had worked at the Marshall Building since approximately 2011, under different security companies. Plaintiff's Statement of Facts [Dkt. # 24-42] ("Pl.'s SF") ¶ 2. Before SGI, plaintiff was employed by U.S. Security Associates. Def.'s SUMF ¶ 35. When she was employed by U.S. Security Associates, she held a position called "Victor 2" from which she would fill in as a supervisor when needed, although this position did not carry additional pay or benefits. Id. ¶ 42; Dep. of Kalisha Thomas, Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-1] ("Thomas Dep.") at 84:19–85:5. The Victor 2 position was not an official position under SGI's contract, although SGI continued to use the title. Dep. of John Fitzgerald Glover, Ex. 17 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-17] ("Glover Dep.") at 119:12–17; Dep. of Leslie Howard-Watts, Ex. 3 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-3] ("Howard-Watts Dep.") at 89:3–18; Dep. of Perry Delvin Shumake, Ex. 5 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-5] ("Shumake Dep.") at 69:9–70:3.

On October 24, 2015, after SGI was awarded the contract, it hired plaintiff as an incumbent security guard. Def.'s SUMF ¶ 35. Her base pay rate upon transfer to SGI was $26.90 per hour, and she received additional employee benefits such as health and pension plan contributions. Id. ¶ 38. When SGI hired plaintiff, it gave her the SGI Employee Handbook and SGI policies on topics such as employment discrimination and sexual harassment. Plaintiff acknowledged the receipt of these materials on October 15, 2015. Def.'s SUMF ¶ 36. All SGI employees at the Marshall Building were represented by the United Government Security Officers of America International Union, Local 276 ("the Union"). Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff worked for SGI between October 24, 2015 and September 15, 2016. Id. ¶ 35; Decl. of Leslie Howard-Watts, Ex. A to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 20-4] ("Howard-Watts Decl.") at SGI 000612.

Since 2001, John Glover has worked as a physical security specialist for the AOUSC at the Marshall Building. Def.'s SUMF ¶ 9. Glover was not an employee of SGI. See Glover Dep. at 12:9–14. He served as the liaison between the AOUSC and SGI and functioned as the Contracting Officer's Representative ("COR"). Glover Dep. at 36:6–10. He was supervised by Scott Ellermets, the Chief of the Administrative Services Division. Id. at 23:1–7.

Glover's area of responsibility was physical security, which entailed purchasing physical equipment and overseeing the daily operations of the physical security staff, including the contractors. Id. at 29:15–21. He was also tasked with enforcing policies and procedures, responding to emergency incidents, and ensuring that the security staff were performing in compliance with the contract. Id. ; Def.'s SUMF ¶ 18. As Glover put it, in carrying out his responsibilities, he would physically walk the areas of the building to ensure that security posts were manned and performance deficiencies were kept to a minimum. Glover Dep. at 30:9–32:18. Under SGI's contract with the AOUSC, SGI must report any disciplinary actions taken against security personnel at the Marshall Building to the COR. Def.'s SUMF ¶ 7.

On November 30, 2015, SGI hired Major Tracey Hayes as the Project Manager in charge of security at the AOUSC in the Marshall Building. Aff. of Major Tracey Hayes, Ex. 7 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-7] ("Hayes Aff.") ¶¶ 2, 4. She oversaw between forty-five and fifty special police officers, three supervisory lieutenants, and one captain. Id. ¶ 3. Hayes worked closely with Glover – they met weekly to discuss the physical security of the building. Hayes Aff. ¶ 5. During the time plaintiff worked for SGI, Major Hayes was one of her supervisors. Plaintiff also reported to Lieutenant Michelle Lee-Anthony and Captain David Grogan. Thomas Dep. at 45:8–9 (indicating that Grogan was one of her supervisors); id. at 59:10–11 (indicating Lieutenant Lee-Anthony was one of her supervisors).

Plaintiff has known Glover since she started working at the Marshall Building in approximately 2012. Thomas Dep. at 32:13–21. Plaintiff is openly gay, id. at 25:19–26:9, and she believes that others at the Marshall Building knew she was gay. Id. at 30:21–31:15. She asserts that throughout the time she was employed by SGI, Glover harassed her at least two to three times a week. Id. at 52:17–53:20. The harassment included referring to plaintiff as "sir"; calling her a "man"; making comments about how masculine or mannish she was; calling her a "playboy" and commenting that she must have a lot of girlfriends; and laughing at her while shaking his head in a manner that made her feel uncomfortable. Id. at 41:18–58:17, 68:14–71:20.

SGI took over the Marshall Building contract, and plaintiff became its employee at the end of October 2015. Def.'s SUMF ¶ 35. Plaintiff states that she complained about Glover's conduct soon after SGI took over the contract by informing Lieutenant Lee-Anthony and Captain Grogan. Thomas Dep. at 44:22–47:17; see Lee-Anthony Dep., Ex. 4 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-4] ("Lee-Anthony Dep.") at 41:8–43:13; Shumake Dep. at 99:10–14 (Grogan left SGI shortly after February 2016). Plaintiff also testified that she complained about Glover to the Project Manager, Major Hayes, on at least two occasions: before January 15, 2016, and again on that date. Thomas Dep. at 98:5–17, 274:5–11; Hayes Aff. ¶ 14 (meeting with Thomas occurred on Jan. 15, 2016).

On January 15, 2016, Major Hayes decided to remove plaintiff from the Victor 2 position. Hayes Aff. ¶ 14. Hayes testified that there were several reasons for the removal: the Victor 2 position would now require work on Fridays, when plaintiff did not want to work; plaintiff had told Major Hayes that she had a history with Glover and did not get along with him; Glover and Lieutenant Michelle Lee-Anthony had reported that plaintiff had a sarcastic demeanor on one occasion; Major Hayes was of the view that removing plaintiff from the position would reduce the interactions with Glover; and Major Hayes was concerned that plaintiff could not respect certain confidentiality rules. Id. ; 2/11/16 Hayes Handwritten Note, Ex. 33 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-33] ("Hayes's Note") at SGI 000163; Dep. of Major Tracey Hayes, Ex. 6 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-6] ("Hayes Dep.") at 58:1–62:5. Plaintiff would remain a Special Police Officer for the Marshall Building, though.

Plaintiff filed an EEOC complaint on February 16, 2016, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on sex. Notice of Charge, Ex. 11 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-11] ("EEOC Compl."). She wrote that she had been harassed by Glover for years because of her sexuality, and that she had been removed from the Victor 2 position at the request of Glover. Id. SGI was notified about the complaint on approximately February 17, 2016, when the EEOC emailed the Notice of Charge to Leslie Howard-Watts, SGI's Human Resources Director. 2/17/16 Email from EEOC to Howard-Watts, Ex. 12 to Pl.'s Opp. [Dkt. # 24-12]. The record does not indicate that SGI opened an official investigation – there is some testimony that Howard-Watts spoke to plaintiff about the allegations, and Howard-Watts understood that the legal department was informed. Howard-Watts Dep. at 75:8–77:13.

On June 3, 2016, plaintiff sent an email to her Union Representative, Brian Howard, in...