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.

Kargbo v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 17, 2017

SAIDU KARGBO, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          REGGIE B. WALTON United States District Judge

         Saidu Kargbo, the pro se plaintiff in this civil case, filed a complaint against his employer, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”), alleging discrimination on the basis of his race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 to -3 (2012) (“Title VII”), and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981”). Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. Currently before the Court are the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Mot.”) and the Plaintiff['s] Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Mot.”). Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions, [1]the Court concludes that it must grant Amtrak's motion and deny the plaintiff's motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The plaintiff is a Black male who was born in Sierra Leone. See Compl. ¶ 7. He immigrated to the United States in 2004 and became a naturalized citizen. See id. The plaintiff has been an Amtrak employee in the District of Columbia since November, 2006, id. ¶ 8, and he has held four different positions at Amtrak: Electrician Journeyman, Management Associate, Locomotive Inspector, and Service Engineer, Def.'s Facts ¶ 3.

         On December 6, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, alleging that Amtrak discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin by failing to hire him for approximately seventy Engineering Management positions for which the plaintiff had applied between December 1, 2010, and December 1, 2013. See Def.'s Mot., Exhibit (“Ex.”) 10 (Charge of Discrimination) at 1. On January 26, 2015, the EEOC mailed to the plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights form, informing him that “[b]ased on its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes.” See Compl., Attachment (“Att.”) 1 (Dismissal and Notice of Rights) at 1. The EEOC advised the plaintiff that if he wished to file suit on his Title VII claim, he must do so within ninety days of his receipt of the Dismissal and Notice of Rights. Id., Att. 1 (Dismissal and Notice of Rights) at 1.

         On May 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed his Complaint, alleging that Amtrak unlawfully denied him promotions that he sought between 2011 and 2015 due to his race and national origin, in violation of Title VII and § 1981. See id. ¶¶ 1, 9-10. Because the plaintiff's Complaint does not specify the specific positions to which he applied, see generally id. ¶¶ 9-15, he produced during discovery a list of the various positions he is contesting in this matter. See List of Jobs at 1-2.

         That list is reproduced below, along with the dates of the hiring decisions, which were provided by Amtrak:[2]

1. Electrician Technician Rider Position: December 2, 2009. Def.'s Facts ¶ 27.
2. ACSES Engineer-Position Number 90117918: June 24, 2010. Id. ¶ 30.
3. General Foreman-Position Number 90037137: July 15, 2010. Id. ¶ 38.
4. Senior Engineer Signal Design-Position Number 90032809: February 4, 2011. Id. ¶ 48.
5. General Foreman-Position Number 90000776: March 14, 2011. Id. ¶ 55.
6. Service Engineer-Position Number 90036823: March 16, 2011. Id. ¶ 68.
7. General Foreman-September 2011: February 6, 2012. Id. ¶ 83.
8. Mechanical Engineer-Position Number 90142738: February 3, 2012. Id. ¶ 104.
9. Systems Engineer-January 2011: no decision date supplied. Id. ¶¶ 88-101.
10. Engine Service Instructor-Position Number 90112809: October 15, 2012. Id. ¶ 114.
11. Systems Engineer-Position Number 90166004: Job cancelled in October 2013. Id. ¶ 119.
12. Foreman III-Position Number 90167602: March 11, 2014. Id. ¶ 131.
13. Foreman II-Position Number 90067441: March 25, 2014. Id. ¶ 144.
14. Foreman II-Position Number 90008122: March 25, 2014. Id. ¶ 152.
15. Foreman II-Position Number 90167601: June 26, 2014. Id. ¶ 160.
16. Foreman II-Position Number 90131504: after June 2014. Id. ¶ 167.
17. Service Engineer HSR-Position Number 90073564: after June 2014. Id. ¶ 208.
18. Service Engineer HSR-Position Number 90073565: after October 2014. Id. ¶ 227.
19. High Speed Rail Supervisor Technician-Position Number 90137403: March 2015. Id. ¶ 247.
20. General Foreman-Position Number 90001629: March 20, 2015. Id. ¶ 254.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Courts will grant a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) 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 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). When ruling on a Rule 56(c) motion, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)). The Court must therefore draw ...


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.