who was quite familiar with
plaintiff's complaint, gave him an unsatisfactory rating. The Court
therefore finds that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of
In denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, it is noted that
the motion was filed before any discovery had been conducted. While
summary judgment can properly be granted at this stage of the proceedings
in some cases, this is not one of those cases. Employment discrimination
cases tend to deal with elusive concepts of motive and intent. Thus, it
is often difficult for a plaintiff to offer direct proof of an employer's
discrimination. For that reason, summary disposition of Title VII cases
is not favored and the court "must be extra-careful to view all the
evidence in the light most favorable" to the plaintiff. Ross v. Runyon,
859 F. Supp. 15, 21-22 (D.D.C. 1994), aff'd per curiam, No. 95-5080, 1995
WL 791567 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 1995). This case will be in that posture, at
the earliest, when discovery is completed.
Plaintiff has filed a request for a court order reinstating a complaint
he filed with the Walter Reed Army Medical Center EEO office in October
2001. Defendant has responded, noting that the EEO office has conceded
that it erred in closing the complaint and has reopened the complaint.
Plaintiff's request will therefore be denied as moot.
An appropriate order signed this day accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Accordingly, it is by the Court this 21st day of October, 2002,
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. #8-1] is DENIED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment [Dkt.
#8-1] is DENIED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply
is GRANTED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an order reinstating his
complaint at Walter Reed's Equal Employment Opportunity Office [Dkt.
#15-1] is DENIED as moot;
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
[Dkt. #11-1] is GRANTED; the Clerk is directed to appoint counsel for
plaintiff from the Civil Pro Bono Panel of the Court; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file an answer to the complaint
within 20 days of the date of this order.