Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mary C. Medlin v. Architect of the Capitol

August 19, 2011

MARY C. MEDLIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert L. Wilkins United States District Judge

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Mary C. Medlin brings this discrimination claim against the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) alleging gender and age discrimination, as well as hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of2 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a)(1), 1311(a)(2), and 1317(a). (Doc. 1.) At the time of the incidents which gave rise to her complaint, Plaintiff was Assistant Director of Personnel in the AOC's Human Resource Management Division. Plaintiff challenges the abolishment of her position, which led to her early retirement.

Seeking dismissal of all Plaintiff's claims, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 9.) For the reasons explained below, the Court finds Defendant's motion is due to be granted, in part, and denied in part.

LEGAL STANDARDS

The Court must treat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). In so doing, the Court must allow all parties "a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Id. Here, both parties refer extensively to documents outside of the complaint and there is nothing in the record which might indicate the parties did not have a reasonable opportunity to present all pertinent material. Accordingly, the Court will treat the Defendant's motion as a motion for summary judgment.

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating no genuine issues of material fact exist. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. When determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in favor of the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), cited in Cruz-Packer v. Dist. of Columbia, 539 F. Supp. 2d 181, 189 (D.D.C. 2008).

ANALYSIS *fn1

A. Retaliation Claim (Count V):

No genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claim because it is undisputed that she engaged in protected activity after she was informed about the challenged employment decision. Plaintiff admits that Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) David Ferguson verbally informed her, sometime in mid-to-late April 2009, that the Acting Architect of the Capitol said he would abolish Plaintiff's position. (Medlin Decl. ¶ 31.) On June 30, 2009, Plaintiff received a confirmation letter notifying her that her position was to be abolished effective August 30, 2009. (Medlin Decl. ¶ 39; Def.'s Ex. C.) In that letter, she was advised that she was eligible for a "discontinued service retirement" and she was also advised that she could apply for other positions.

(Def.'s Ex. C.) A little over one month after receiving the letter, Plaintiff informed Ferguson that she was going to submit an EEO complaint, which she did several days later on August 10, 2009. (Medlin Decl. ¶¶ 43-44, 48.) The complaint was mediated on August 27, 2009, and apparently mediation was unsuccessful. Three days later, on August 30, 2009, Plaintiff received a letter confirming abolishment of her position and explaining that a termination action would be processed if she failed to submit her retirement paperwork by close of business. (Def.'s Ex. D.) Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, this final August 30 letter did not constitute retaliation for Plaintiff's EEO complaint; it is undisputed that Plaintiff filed her EEO complaint between the time she received the initial June 30 letter and the final August 30 letter. Thus, the EEO complaint could not have been the cause of the decision to abolish her position. Accordingly, Plaintiff's retaliation claim must fail. *fn2

B. Hostile Work Environment Claims (Counts III & IV):

No genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims. "[Conduct] creates a hostile environment only if it is so 'severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.'" Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.