The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Facciola United States Magistrate Judge
This case was referred to me for all purposes including trial by Judge Kessler pursuant to LcvR 73.1(a). Currently pending and ready for resolution are three motions: 1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"), 2) Defendants' Motion in Limine [sic] and Motion to Strike Unemployment Compensation Decision ("Defs. MIL"), and 3) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [sic] ("Plains. MIL"). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted, rendering the two other motions moot.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,"summary judgment is appropriate"if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). As determined by the substantive law, material facts are those that affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A genuine dispute is one where"the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248."Courts evaluating motions for summary judgment in discrimination cases are advised to proceed with additional caution and apply a high degree of scrutiny." Jones v. District of Columbia, No. CIV.A.00-2140, 2004 WL 261421, at *6 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2004). This does not, however, relieve the parties of their respective burdens. The burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). The non-moving or adverse party also has a burden and"may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
There is no genuine issue as to the following material facts:
1. Plaintiff, Jennifer Johnson, is a graduate of Howard University Law School.
2. Plaintiff began working for defendants on August 24, 1998 as an EEO Investigator and Diversity Specialist in the Office of Civil Rights.
3. On December 15, 1997, plaintiff signed a Certification Statement indicating her receipt and review of WMATA standards of conduct. MSJ, Att. 3.
4. Some time after October 13, 1999, plaintiff signed a Confidentiality Statement that governed all employees of WMATA's Department of Administrative Services, the Office of Human Resource Management and Planning, the Office of Employee and Labor Relations, and the Office of Civil Rights. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opposition to MSJ") at Exhibit 2.
5. On August 8, 2000, plaintiff received a letter of reprimand from Cynthia Myers, Director of Civil Rights at WMATA, which stated that plaintiff was being reprimanded for having removed two case files from the Office of Civil Rights. MSJ, Att. 6.
6. On November 2, 2000, plaintiff received a memorandum from Angela Martin regarding a previously issued memorandum of warning dated October 24, 2000. MSJ, Att. 7. The subject of the November memorandum was an incident in which plaintiff alleged she was physically bumped by another employee and also treated rudely by that same employee. The memorandum stated that the alleged bumping incident did not occur as described by plaintiff and that the other employee had not violated any WMATA policy. The ...