U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Caci Secured Transformations, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. JKB-19-2693 |
| Parties | U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CACI SECURED TRANSFORMATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This case arises from Mary Dyer's employment on and discharge from the Middleware III ("MWIII") NSA contract, which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claims violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). In this case, the EEOC, on behalf of Dyer, brings claims against associated corporate entities (collectively, "Defendants") that were the prime contractors on the MWIII contract and that, for nearly all purposes, can be aggregated under the banner of CACI. (See Mot. Summ. J. Mem. Supp. at 4, ECF No. 75-1; Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Mem. Supp. at 21-22, ECF No. 78-1.) Defendants did not formally employ Dyer, who was, on paper, an employee of third-party Defendant Que Technology Group ("Que").
Now pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75), and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78). The parties' summary judgment motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is required. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75) and grant Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78).
MWIII was a contract between Defendants and the NSA pursuant to which Defendants provided various engineering support services to the NSA. (See Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 21, ECF No. 78-23.) Among these services was the staffing of Multifactor Authentication ("MFA") help desks in various NSA offices. (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 22, ECF No. 78-24.) Relevant to this lawsuit are the help desks located at the National Business Park ("NBP") and NSA Headquarters ("OPS2A") locations. These helps desks were staffed by Systems Administrators ("SAs") directly employed by Defendants as well as SAs sourced through subcontractors, including Que. (Weaver Dep. at 32:1-6, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2, ECF No. 75-5.)
In early 2018, a Que recruiter reached out to Dyer regarding a position as an SA on the MWIII contract. (Dyer Dep. Vol. II at 32:11-35:9, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 7, ECF No. 75-10.) After Dyer indicated her interest in the position, Que submitted her resume to Defendants. (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 24 at 6, ECF No. 78-26.) On January 26, 2018, Dyer had a positive interview with Jody Barber, Defendants' help desk tech lead, and Defendants indicated to Que that they would be interested in hiring Dyer onto the MWIII project. (Id.) On February 6, Dyer signed a"Contingent Employee Agreement" with Que that was conditioned on Dyer's selection "as a System Administrator for the TBD Que Technology Group program." (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 5 at 2, ECF No. 78-7.) Dyer began her employment as an SA on the MWIII project shortly thereafter.
An SA's primary responsibility was to assist NSA personnel with MFA issues through either an electronic ticket system or on a walk-in basis. (See Barber Dep. at 21:16-19, 78:9-13, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3, ECF No. 75-6.) These responsibilities were performed from help desk kiosks, under the supervision of Jody Barber. (Id. at 34:20-36:19.) Help desks were open from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., which required SAs to work either early or late shifts, with some flexibility to adjust their schedules to accommodate personal appointments and other matters. (Id. at 63:2-22.) These schedules were approved by Defendants (id. at 36:15-19), and SAs were also required to record their time in Defendants' database. (Jennifer Johnson Dep. at 36:18-37:14, Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 12, ECF No. 78-14.)
In addition to generally working a consistent shift, SAs were assigned a "home site" by Defendants. (Barber Dep. at 256:13-257:3.) As with selecting shifts, this "home site" served as a default work location, but SAs could be moved to other sites by Defendants as necessary to ensure help desk coverage. (Id. at91:13-92:9.) When she joined the MWIII project, Dyer's home site was NBP (Id. at 256:20-22), and she typically worked from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 16, ECF No. 75-19.)
About two months after being hired onto the MWIII contract, Dyer was involved in a car accident ), in which she suffered a concussion. (Cross-Mot Partial Summ. J. Ex. 25.) Due to her injuries from the accident, Dyer took medical leave from May 9 to August 12, 2018 while she received treatment for "chronic post-traumatic headaches"2 and related symptoms, including "difficulty with concentration, photophobia (light sensitivity), phonophobia (sound sensitivity), nausea, and dizziness." .) During this time, she regularly provided updates about her condition to both her Que manager (Yolanda Fogg) and her CACI manager (Barber). (See Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 10, ECF No. 75-13; Barber Dep. at 108:9-109:6.)
On August 1, Dyer informed Defendants and Que that she had been referred to the National Rehabilitation Hospital for further treatment. (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 33, ECF No. 78-35.) That same day, Richard Weaver, CACI's MWIII Program Manager, emailed Quartus Johnson, Que's President, explaining that (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 34, ECF No. 78-36.) Johnson confirmed that Que understood Defendants had to "move forward with backfilling [Dyer's] position" and noted that Que was also "actively sourcing to find a backfill." (Id.) Fogg informed Dyer that her position might be backfilled if she was unable to return to work. (Bramwell Dep. at 63:4-18, Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 10, ECF No. 78-12.)
On August 13, Dyer received a doctor's note clearing her to return to work. (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 36, ECF No. 78-38.) She returned to NBP, where she managed her ongoing symptoms by eliminating headache "triggers," such as stress, noise, and bright light. (Dyer Decl. ¶¶ 30, 36.) She also aimed to alleviate her symptoms through workplace interventions, such as medication, tinted prescription glasses, and an ergonomic chair provided by Que. (Id.) Outside of the office, her strategies included "physical therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic manipulation,"and mitigating the stress of her one-hour-and-twenty-minute-long commute to work by arranging to carpool with a colleague two-to-three times per week. (Id.) These strategies were sufficient to allow Dyer to effectively perform her work as an SA, and she received several positive customer reviews after returning from medical leave. (See Barber Dep. 124:2-10; see also Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 3, ECF No. 78-5.)
On September 17, Jennifer Johnson—Barber's colleague at CACI—reached out to Dyer via Skype chat, explaining that (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 38 at 2, ECF No. 78-40.) Dyer responded that she felt that OPS2A would pose a "longer and bit more difficult commute" and raised concerns about the "commute/needs for my son, getting home at a certain time, & the post-concussion headaches i get from the commute already."3 (Id. at 3.) Johnson insisted that the commute to OPS2A and the hours Dyer would be expected to work would remain largely the same. (Id.) She also forwarded the conversation to Barber twice, including the comments, "now what..." and, "all yours..." (Id. at 2; Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 40.)
The following day, Dyer followed up by email with both Johnson and Barber, asking to shift her work schedule up one hour, and that she be permitted to leave the OPS2A office by 3:30 p.m. because "[t]he shuttle departure time from OPS 2A is 345 for me to make it back to NPB by 4, [to] catch my ride home, or get to my car."4 (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 41 at 3, ECF No.78-43.) She also explained that the modified schedule "allows [her] to get to [chiropractic] appts, as well as acupuncture which help with the headaches that continue after the accident." (Id.)
In response, Barber reproached Dyer for what she saw as an attempt to unilaterally change her work hours, but nonetheless largely agreed to the proposed schedule—provided that Dyer stayed at OPS2A until 3:40 p.m. (Id.) Fogg responded to Barber's email to express that "[Dyer] is willing to help out the team to the best of her ability while juggling her personal responsibilities," and also to confirm that "the issue is resolved and the customer's needs are met in a timely and professional manner." (Id. at 2.)
On September 20, Dyer did a "dry run" of her new 8:00 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. schedule at OPS2A. (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 42, ECF No. 78-44.) That same day, Barber forwarded the September 18 email chain to Weaver and wrote, "bottom line, I think [Dyer] is unwilling to make the change to OPS2A for a short duration." (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 41 at 2.) She also alluded to a "discussion with Jen and I yesterday which involved full-fledged tears and how [Dyer] has trouble scheduling all the activities she must address as a single mother." (Id.) While Barber "completely under[stood]" these challenges, she felt there was "no way I can accommodate the needs of all individuals and ensure the kiosks have coverage." (Id.) On September 21, Dyer reported that the "dry run went fine," despite hitting "alot of traffic coming in," which caused her to "miss[] the initial shuttle [and] grab[] the next." (Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. Ex. 43, ECF No. 78-45.)
Early the following week, Dyer saw her physician and received a...
To continue reading
Request your trial