Warner v. DaVita Vance-Cooks

Citation956 F.Supp.2d 129
Decision Date25 July 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 10–1306(BAH).
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia
PartiesKimberly WARNER, Plaintiff, v. Davita VANCE–COOKS, in her official capacity as Acting Public Printer of the United States, Defendant.

956 F.Supp.2d 129

Kimberly WARNER, Plaintiff,
v.
Davita VANCE–COOKS, in her official capacity as Acting Public Printer of the United States, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 10–1306(BAH).

United States District Court,
District of Columbia.

July 25, 2013.


[956 F.Supp.2d 136]


Anne King, Brian Wolfman, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Jeremy S. Simon, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Kimberly Warner, who is currently employed as the Chief of the Digital Print Center (“DPC”), a unit of the Plant Operations Division of the Government Printing Office (“GPO”),1 initiated this action against GPO's Chief Executive Officer, in his official capacity, alleging a “pattern of sex discrimination and retaliation” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), ¶ 1.2

[956 F.Supp.2d 137]

Over the last decade, this plaintiff has had a fraught employment history with GPO, involving her filing five formal Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaints about multiple decisions made by GPO that the plaintiff alleged reflected discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of her. The wrongful actions alleged by the plaintiff in the instant action arise from three of these EEO complaints and include denial of her applications for more senior management positions, her requests for training opportunities, committee assignments, and a private office; the downgrading of two performance evaluations from the highest to second highest rating; understaffing, the noise level and equipment leasing at DPC; and the reassignment of three DPC employees, a management decision which the plaintiff views as a removal of certain of her supervisory functions. The defendant has moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff's claims are fatally flawed because, inter alia, the alleged wrongful actions do not constitute adverse employment actions, are untimely, and/or were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reasons, which the plaintiff cannot show are pretextual. For the reasons explained below, the defendant's pending motion for summary judgment is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

After graduating from high school and working as a cashier and ticket seller for Tour Mobile Sightseeing, the plaintiff, in 1989, began her employment with GPO, where she initially worked as a payroll technician in the Finance Department. Compl. ¶ 6; Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 21 (“Def.'s Mot.”), Ex. 1 (Deposition of Kimberly Warner (Oct. 17, 2011) (“Pl.'s Dep.”), ECF No. 21–5, at 9; 3 Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 24, at 2; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 3 (Declaration of Kimberly Warner (Apr. 16, 2012) (“Pl. Decl.”)), ECF No. 24–3, ¶ 2. Approximately six years after joining GPO, in 1995, the plaintiff began working as a graphic process operator in the Phototypesetting and Processing Section of GPO. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Stmt. of Mat. Facts Not in Dispute, ECF No. 24 (“Pl.'s Facts”), ¶ 1; Def.'s Stmt. of Mat. Facts Not in Dispute, ECF No. 21 (“Def.'s Facts”), ¶ 1; see also Compl. ¶ 6. In 2001, she was promoted to Supervisory Graphic Process Operator.4 Pl.'s Facts ¶ 9; Def.'s Facts ¶ 9; see also Compl. ¶ 6. The plaintiff has not attended college nor participated in any apprenticeship program to become a journeyperson in printing. Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 21–5, at 18, 23 (plaintiff explained that she sat for the apprenticeship program test on one occasion but “did not place high enough” for acceptance into the program).

In 2005, the Phototypesetting and Processing Section was renamed the Digital Print Center (“DPC”), and, in March 2005, the plaintiff became the first Chief of the DPC. Pl. Decl. ¶ 3. Also in 2005, the DPC was moved from the Electronic Photocomposition Division (“EPD”), which is now called “Pre–Press,” into the Bindery Division of GPO. Def.'s Mot., Ex. 2 (Deposition of John W. Crawford (Sept. 30, 2011 &

[956 F.Supp.2d 138]

Oct. 14, 2011) (“Crawford Dep.”)), ECF No. 21–6, at 21, Def.'s Facts ¶ 4; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 4 (“undisputed.”). DPC is a graphic processor operation that does pre-press, printing, and finishing work, including, according to the plaintiff, binding. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 6; Def.'s Facts ¶ 6. Unlike other Bindery units, however, DPC employees do not need to be craft journeypersons. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 6; Def.'s Facts ¶ 6. In March or April of 2005, the plaintiff was promoted to the “newly created position of Chief of DPC.” Compare Pl.'s Facts ¶ 11 (indicating that plaintiff had held title of Chief of DPC “since the position was created on March 9, 2005”) with Compl. ¶ 6 (indicating that the plaintiff was promoted to this position in “April 2005”) and with Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 11–12 (indicating that plaintiff obtained this title “as part of the settlement,” which occurred in March 2007).5 In this position, “she is currently paid at the same rate paid to an Assistant Foreperson.” Def.'s Facts ¶ 11; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 11.

In her role as Chief of DPC, the plaintiff “supervises skilled subordinate employees performing both blue-collar and white-collar work, ensures that division goals are met, monitors production of GPO materials, troubleshoots any problems in the DPC and two offsite locations, and otherwise oversees the safe operation and maintenance of the DPC.” Compl. ¶ 7. The plaintiff “is in charge of scheduling, assigning work to, training, evaluating, and monitoring employees across three shifts and serves as the selecting official for all vacancies within the DPC.” Id. Her “position requires expert knowledge in highly technical machinery, computers, and software applications; GPO and DPC procedures, work standards, and workflow; and GPO personnel policies, functions, and operations.” Id.

A. 2005 Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints and 2007 Settlement

Shortly after becoming Chief of the DPC, the plaintiff filed her first formal EEO complaint with GPO on April 27, 2005, alleging gender discrimination by Robert Schwenk, Directing Manager of Plant Operations, and Dannie Young, Superintendent of the Electronic Processing Division (“EPD”), because “she was being paid less than her male coworkers,” Compl. ¶ 8, and “being paid significantly less than the male supervisor she replaced,” Pl.'s Opp'n at 2; see also Pl. Decl. ¶ 9; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 4 (EEO Complaint of Discrimination No. 05–16, filed April 27, 2005), ECF No. 24–4. Six months after filing her first complaint, the plaintiff filed a second formal EEO complaint on October 18, 2005, alleging that GPO had retaliated against her for filing her first complaint. Compl. ¶ 8. In 2006, the plaintiff's two EEO complaints were consolidated, and in March 2007, the plaintiff reached a settlement with GPO under which the plaintiff “received an increased hourly wage” equivalent to that of an Assistant Foreperson, and “a lump sum payment.” Id.; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 5 (EEOC Settlement Agreement, Warner v. James, EEOC No. 100–2005–00191X (Mar. 12, 2007)), at 2–5; Pl. Decl. ¶ 9. According to the plaintiff, management personnel supervising her during the key period at issue in the instant complaint “were all aware of this protected activity,” including Walter Wingo, who was her immediate supervisor as of early 2008, Katherine Taylor, who was her second-level supervisor, and John Crawford, who was her fourth-level supervisor.6 Pl.'s Opp'n at 2; see also Pl.'s

[956 F.Supp.2d 139]

Opp'n, Ex. 6 (Deposition of John W. Crawford (Sept. 30, 2011 & Oct. 14, 2011) (“Crawford Dep.”)), ECF No. 24–6, at 332–33; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 7 (Deposition of Katherine L. Taylor (May 3, 2011) (“Taylor Dep.”)), ECF No. 24–7, at 267; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 8 (Deposition of Walter H. Wingo, Jr. (Aug. 3, 2011) (“Wingo Dep.”)), ECF No. 24–8, at 250–51.

B. Allegations of “Obstacles to Advancement” Following the 2007 Settlement

The plaintiff alleges that she faced “obstacles to her professional advancement” after the settlement of her EEO complaints in 2007. Compl. ¶ 1. These alleged obstacles take myriad forms, including allegedly lower-than-deserved performance evaluations in 2007 and 2008, non-selection for promotion, poor working conditions, denial of professional opportunities, and reduction in supervisory responsibilities. The plaintiff's criticisms of multiple management decisions and activity from 2007 through 2010 could devolve into analysis of workplace minutia but are only generally described below with the key facts underlying her claims of gender discrimination and retaliation.

1. 2007 Performance Evaluation

In the fourth quarter (“Q4”) of 2007, GPO implemented a bonus program for supervisors, including the plaintiff, and, in connection with that program, performance ratings were issued with respect to that single quarter. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 16; Def.'s Facts ¶ 16. On January 7, 2008, Ms. Taylor, who had become the Superintendent of the Bindery and the plaintiff's second-level supervisor in December 2007, shortly before the ratings were given, showed the plaintiff her performance rating for Q4 2007. Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 14, 17; Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 14, 17. The plaintiff points out that this was “her first evaluation since the March 2007 settlement.” Compl. ¶ 16. This was also the first time that monetary awards were tied to performance ratings, and “achieving ‘outstanding’ was a little more difficult because goals had to be met to get the money.” Def.'s Mot., Ex. 4, Affidavit of John Crawford (Mar. 13, 2009) (“Crawford Aff.”), ECF No. 21–4, ¶ 5; see also Crawford Dep., ECF No. 21–6, at 58. 7

The plaintiff received an “excellent” rating, one rating below the highest rating of “outstanding,” which she had “consistently received” before then. Compl. ¶ 16; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 18; Def.'s Facts ¶ 18. Although the plaintiff immediately disputed the rating, she nevertheless signed it at the direction of Ms. Taylor, who indicated that without the plaintiff's signature, she would not obtain her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Godfrey v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2021
    ...in an understaffed office fodder for a [discrimination] claim." Rattigan , 503 F. Supp. 2d at 76 ; see also Warner v. Vance-Cooks , 956 F. Supp. 2d 129, 170 (D.D.C. 2013) (holding that elimination of staff positions in government office plaintiff supervised was not a materially adverse acti......
  • Bd. of Comm'rs of Cherokee Cnty. v. Jewel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 25, 2013
  • Godfrey v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2021
    ...in an understaffed office fodder for a [discrimination] claim." Rattigan, 503 F. Supp. 2d at 76; see also Warner v. Vance-Cooks, 956 F. Supp. 2d 129, 170 (D.D.C. 2013) (holding that Page 45elimination of staff positions in government office plaintiff supervised was not a materially adverse ......
  • Burton v. Dist. of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 9, 2015
    ...motivated employment decision,’ evidence of a statistical disparity is ‘ordinarily not dispositive.’ ” Warner v. Vance–Cooks, 956 F.Supp.2d 129, 159 (D.D.C.2013) (quoting Krodel v. Young, 748 F.2d 701, 710 (D.C.Cir.1984) ). As such, “[i]n order to be useful, the plaintiff must focus the sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT