Wang v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

• Citation: 206 F.Supp.3d 46
• Decision Date: 25 July 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 14-1189 (RC)
• Parties: Amy WANG, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.
• Court: United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)

206 F.Supp.3d 46

Amy WANG, Plaintiff,

v.WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 14-1189 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed July 25, 2016

R. Scott Oswald, John T. Harrington, Jr., The Employment Law Group, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Michael Kelly Guss, Patricia B. Donkor, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Citing acts of insubordination and communication issues, Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) placed its former Financial Control Manager, Plaintiff Amy Wang, on a thirty-day corrective action plan. After Ms. Wang's supervisor found Ms. Wang's performance on the corrective action plan unacceptable, WMATA terminated Ms. Wang's employment.

This suit followed. Ms. Wang alleges that WMATA violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her based on her national origin, race, and sex, and by retaliating against her in response to her opposition to those discriminatory acts. Ms. Wang also alleges that WMATA retaliated against her in response to her whistleblowing in relation to federal funds WMATA received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

WMATA now moves for summary judgment. On the record the parties present, a reasonable jury could find that WMATA's reasons for terminating Ms. Wang are a pretextual cover for discrimination. A reasonable jury could alternatively find that WMATA terminated Ms. Wang as retaliation for her opposition to what she reasonably perceived to be WMATA's discrimination. The Court therefore declines to grant summary judgment on Ms. Wang's Title VII claims. But, because Ms. Wang has not established that she made a disclosure that the ARRA's whistleblower provision protects, the Court will grant WMATA's motion for summary judgment on Ms. Wang's ARRA retaliation claim.

II. BACKGROUND¹

A. Ms. Wang's First Two Years at WMATA (2006–2008)

Defendant WMATA provides transit services in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Am. Compl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 9; Answer Am. Compl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 10.² On May 22, 2006, Plaintiff Amy Wang, a Chinese-American female, began working as the Financial Control Manager in WMATA's Office of Accounting. Am. Compl.

¶¶ 2, 30; Answer Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 30; Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ¶ 1, ECF No. 19-2 [hereinafter Def.'s Statement]; Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts in Dispute 1, ¶ 1, ECF No. 20-1 [hereinafter Pl.'s Statement].³ As WMATA's Financial Control Manager, Ms. Wang's responsibilities included managing WMATA's General Ledger and WMATA's Accounts Receivable group. Def.'s Statement ¶ 2; Pl.'s Statement 2, ¶ 2. She also supervised several employees. Def.'s Statement ¶ 2; Pl.'s Statement 2, ¶ 2. During Ms. Wang's first two years at WMATA, Ms. Wang reported to Kathleen Smith, WMATA's Comptroller, until Ms. Smith left WMATA in January 2008. Pl.'s Statement 5–6, ¶¶ 42, 45; accord Audette Dep. 17:12–18:8, Pl.'s Statement Ex. 2, ECF No. 20-4. Between January 2008 and October 2008, Ms. Wang reported to Fawzia Hafeez, WMATA's Acting Comptroller. Pl.'s Statement 5–6, ¶ 45; accord Audette Dep. 18:4–15.

B. Ms. Wang's Years Under Ms. Audette's Supervision (2008–2012)

1. Performance Evaluations and Corrective Action Plan

In October 2008, Stephanie Audette became WMATA's Comptroller and Ms. Wang's direct supervisor. Def.'s Statement ¶ 8; Pl.'s Statement 2, ¶ 5. Ms. Audette remained Ms. Wang's direct supervisor until August 2012. Pl.'s Statement 5, ¶ 42; accord Audette Dep. 16:22–17:3. Between October 2008 and August 2012, Ms. Audette prepared Ms. Wang's yearly performance evaluations. Pl.'s Statement 5, ¶¶ 43–44; accord Audette Dep. 16:22–17:6.

Ms. Wang received her 2009 performance evaluation from Ms. Audette on September 9, 2009. Def.'s Statement ¶ 8; Pl.'s Statement 2, ¶ 5. In that evaluation, Ms. Audette gave Ms. Wang a "Needs Improvement" rating in ten of the thirteen categories in the evaluation. Def.'s Statement ¶ 8; Pl.'s Statement 2, ¶ 5. Ms. Audette accordingly placed Ms. Wang on a corrective action plan, in which Ms. Wang received three and a half months to meet the goals specified in the plan. Def.'s Statement ¶ 8; Pl.'s Statement 2, ¶ 5; id. at 19, ¶ 3; Def.'s Resp. Pl.'s Statement 7, ¶ 3, ECF No. 21-1 [hereinafter Def.'s Resp. Statement]. Ms. Wang successfully completed the tasks specified in the plan. Pl.'s Statement 19, ¶ 4; Def.'s Resp. Statement 7, ¶¶ 2, 4. Ms. Wang received a satisfactory performance evaluation in 2010, and she received a "competent" or "exceeds expectations" rating for each metric in her 2011 and 2012 performance evaluations. Am. Compl. ¶ 38; Answer Am. Compl. ¶ 38; Pl.'s Statement 14, ¶ 25; Def.'s Resp. Statement 5, ¶ 24.

2. IFO Project

In 2010, while Ms. Audette was Ms. Wang's supervisor, WMATA began work with a contractor named Metaformers on a project titled the PeopleSoft Integrated Finance Organization Project, or the "IFO Project." Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50, 54 (indicating that WMATA awarded Metaformers the contract for the IFO Project in July 2010); Answer Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50, 54 (same); Pl.'s Statement 5, ¶ 43 (indicating that Ms. Audette was Ms. Wang's supervisor in 2010); Audette Dep. 16:22–17:3 (same). Supported by about five million dollars in federal stimulus funds, the IFO Project sought to upgrade, restructure, and bring new modules into the PeopleSoft Enterprise software that WMATA's financial departments used. Def.'s Statement ¶ 75; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 24; id. at 55–56, ¶¶ 1–2; Def.'s Resp. Statement 15, ¶¶ 1–2. One of the IFO Project's major goals was to eliminate manual communication between different modules by allowing the modules to be integrated together. Def.'s Statement ¶ 79; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 28. To that end, for instance, the IFO Project integrated WMATA's Project Costing accounting system with WMATA's PeopleSoft Financial system. Am. Compl. ¶ 113; Answer Am. Compl. ¶ 113.

The IFO Project proceeded in stages: a design phase came first, followed by a testing phase, then an implementation phase, and finally a maintenance phase. Def.'s Statement ¶ 76; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 25. During the course of the project, a "Project Team" of WMATA employees ("leads") worked full-time on the IFO Project alongside Metaformers. Def.'s Statement ¶ 77; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 26. But regardless of WMATA employees' Project Team membership, WMATA required everyone in its Office of Accounting to contribute to the IFO Project. Def.'s Statement ¶ 78; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 27. Thus, although Ms. Wang and her staff were not Project Team members, they were "subject-matter experts" for IFO Project purposes, because they used the modules that the IFO Project upgraded. Def.'s Statement ¶ 77; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 26.

While work for the IFO Project was ongoing, it was Ms. Wang's group's top priority. Pl.'s Statement 57, ¶ 13; Def.'s Resp. Statement 16, ¶ 13. Ms. Wang helped the Project Team with the design and testing for software used in Ms. Wang's areas of responsibility. Pl.'s Statement 57, ¶ 11; Def.'s Resp. Statement 16, ¶ 11. For instance, during the testing phase, Metaformers would produce testing kits, and Ms. Wang would organize her staff so that affected staff members could use the kits to test affected modules. Def.'s Statement ¶ 80; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 29. Because she did not believe she could do all the testing herself, Ms. Wang relied on her staff to test the modules: she assigned testing tasks and monitored her staff's performance and completion of the tasks. Def.'s Statement ¶ 80; Pl.'s Statement 4, ¶ 29; id. at 57–58, ¶ 14; Def.'s Resp. Statement 16, ¶ 14. Throughout the IFO Project, at the end of each accounting period, Ms. Wang was responsible for ensuring that all accounts' transactions were properly completed, and that fiscal years and accounting periods closed in a timely manner. Am. Compl. ¶ 94; Answer Am. Compl. ¶ 94.

As the IFO Project went on, however, extensive data issues arose that required manual interventions, data deletions, and data corrections. Am. Compl. ¶ 109, Answer Am. Compl. ¶ 109. In September 2012, for instance, the IFO Project created a $26 million erroneous billing entry, which Ms. Audette asked Ms. Wang to correct. Pl.'s Statement 60, ¶ 28; Def.'s Resp. Statement 17, ¶ 28 (declining to dispute this fact). After Ms. Wang refused to correct the entry because she claimed that she lacked supporting documentation for the correction, Ms. Audette asked one of Ms. Wang's staff members to correct the entry, because Ms. Audette believed that the correction did have supporting documentation. Pl.'s Statement 60, ¶¶ 28–29; Def.'s Resp. Statement 17, ¶¶ 28–29.

Ms. Wang raised issues with the IFO Project's implementation in emails to Ms. Audette and others in October 2011, in a meeting in November 2011, and in an email in July 2012. Pl.'s Statement 58–60, ¶¶ 19, 25; Def.'s Resp. Statement 16–17, ¶¶ 19, 25. The issues meant that WMATA never completed a design that allowed automated integration of assets. Pl.'s Statement 62, ¶ 35; Def.'s Resp. Statement 17, ¶ 35. By July 2012, the issues were well-known and widely discussed. Def.'s Statement ¶ 95; Pl.'s Statement 5, ¶ 35. Despite the group efforts taken to resolve the issues, they persisted for years after the upgraded software's implementation. Am. Compl. ¶ 118; Answer Am. Compl. ¶ 118; Pl.'s Statement 57, ¶ 9; Def.'s Resp. Statement 15, ¶ 9.

C. Ms. Wang's Year Under Mr. Greaves's Supervision (2012–2013)

1. Supervisory Structure

In August 2012, WMATA hired Ian Greaves to become its Assistant Comptroller, a newly created position that reported to Ms. Audette. Def.'s Statement ¶ 11; Pl.'s Statement 2, ¶ 6; id. at 6, ¶ 49; see also Greaves Dep. 15:3–5, Pl.'s Statement Ex. 3, ECF No. 20-5 (noting that Ms. Audette was Mr. Greaves's...