training, assignment, denial of advance sick leave, promotion, or recall of correctional officers discharged by reduction in force. In particular, Ms. Fain did not show she (1) was treated differently from other correctional officers in training or assignment during the course of her employment at the Jail; (2) applied or qualified to return to light duty work at the Jail before June 10, 1980; (3) requested advance sick leave properly or was refused while others in comparable positions at the Jail received advance sick leave; (4) was denied promotion while other correctional officers received promotions; or (5) was denied an opportunity to return to work after her discharge by a reduction in force.
The Court disapproves of Ms. Coleman's behavior towards plaintiff. However, her behavior cannot be attributed to the District of Columbia. Ms. Coleman was not plaintiff's supervisor. Ms. Fain never requested removal from assignment with her. Ms. Coleman was reprimanded by her supervisor on at least one occasion for failing to support Ms. Fain. Finally, Ms. Coleman was punished and reassigned as a result of her assault on the plaintiff. The bias in one senior correctional officer does not establish a "pattern and practice" of discrimination against white female correctional officers at the Jail. See Freeman v. Lewis, 218 U.S. App. D.C. 379, 675 F.2d 398, 400-01 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (bias in one individual employer, who died before plaintiff was denied promotion, was not sufficient evidence of "pattern and practice" of discrimination against whites and women).
In view of Ms. Fain's discharge by RIF, the confusion in providing notice, and the subsequent return of many of those discharged, a prima facie case of racial discrimination was proven in the area of discharge. Plaintiff showed she was terminated from a job for which she was qualified. Other employees, most of whom were black, returned to work while plaintiff did not return. See Flowers v. Crouch-Walker Corporation, 552 F.2d 1277, 1282 (7th Cir. 1977).
Defendants rebutted plaintiff's prima facie case by presenting evidence that the discharge was caused by a non-discriminatory application of a reduction in force (RIF) directive. The confusion surrounding the notice provided plaintiff, while regrettable, does not persuade the Court that the RIF was a pretext to discharge plaintiff or was applied in a discriminatory manner against plaintiff because of her race. Any inference that the Office of Personnel applied the RIF in a discriminatory manner against plaintiff was dispelled by her complete lack of effort to return to work in the face of knowledge that other correctional officers had returned. Plaintiff failed to persuade the Court that "a discriminatory reason more likely motivated" the implementation of the RIF towards plaintiff or that the defendants' "proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." Valentino v. United States Postal Service, 218 U.S. App. D.C. 213, 674 F.2d 56, 64 (D.C. Cir. 1982), quoting Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256.
The Court enters judgment for defendants and dismisses this action with prejudice. In accordance with the parties' stipulation, the Court orders the District of Columbia to pay plaintiff 17 days' back pay forthwith. To obtain the back pay, the plaintiff must acknowledge in writing her temporary rehiring for purposes of the 17 days' back pay, but she need not appear in person for a swearing in ceremony.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following court-provided text does not appear at this cite in 568 F. Supp.]
An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
This case was tried to the Court on March 1-4, 1983. For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is by the Court this 18th day of March 1983,
ORDERED that judgment is entered for the defendants; it is further
ORDERED that the District of Columbia pay plaintiff 17 days' back pay forthwith upon her written acknowledgement of temporary rehiring for purposes of such payment; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.