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.

Clarke v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

United States District Court, District of Columbia

November 14, 2012

Carlton CLARKE, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Page 12

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 13

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 14

Carlton Clarke, Germantown, MD, pro se.

Gerard Joseph Stief, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for sanctions. The pro se plaintiff brings suit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (" WMATA" ), alleging that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of his race and gender. Because the plaintiff fails to cast any doubt upon WMATA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing him, the court will grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny the plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts in this matter are largely undisputed. The plaintiff, a black male, was hired as an Accounts Receivable Supervisor by WMATA in October 2007. Def.'s Mot. at 2. Under WMATA's personnel procedures, the plaintiff was placed on a " probationary status" for one year following his first day of work. Id. at 4. The plaintiff was hired to replace another employee, Warren Woodward, who had earlier held the Accounts Receivable Supervisor position on a temporary basis; Woodward was not selected as the permanent supervisor due to his frequent tardiness. Def.'s Stmt. of Facts ¶ 2. The plaintiff was supervised by Huiling Wang. Id. ¶ 4.

Of the 80 days the plaintiff was employed with WMATA, computerized records show that the plaintiff arrived late 48 times. Def.'s Mot., Ex. C at 2-6. A series of emails reveal that the plaintiff was asked not to be late on more than one occasion. In December 2007, Ms. Wang emailed the plaintiff to write: " You need to come to work on time. Especially as a supervisor, you need to be a good example. If you are late, you need to call me. Thank you." Id., Ex. B-2 at 2. The plaintiff admitted that he had repeatedly shown up late and responded: " I will make sure not to be late in the future." Id. The plaintiff's late arrivals continued, however, and in January 2008 Ms. Wang again warned plaintiff to arrive punctually. Id., Ex. B-1 (" Again, please come on time. Be a good example to your staff." ).

The defendant also claims that the plaintiff's work performance was unsatisfactory. In particular, the plaintiff indicated that he was familiar with PeopleSoft, a software system used by WMATA employees. Def.'s Mot. at 3; Id. Ex. A (Wang Aff. ¶ 5). In January 2008, the plaintiff called Ms. Wang to ask how to perform certain functions within the PeopleSoft system. Def.'s Mot. at 4. Ms. Wang responded by expressing concerns about his lack of familiarity

Page 15

with the system and frustration with his tenure at WMATA overall. Id. On February 15, 2008, Ms. Wang terminated the plaintiff. Wang Aff. ¶ 10. The plaintiff filed suit in June 2010, alleging that his firing was motivated by discrimination on the basis of race and gender.[1] WMATA has now filed a motion for summary judgment. The ...


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.