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.

Bryant v. Taylor

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 27, 2017

VICKI CAROL BRYANT, Plaintiff,
v.
PAT TAYLOR, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge

         This race and age discrimination case is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. 10). For the reasons explained below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Defendant Pat Taylor is the President of Pat Taylor and Associates, Inc., a “job recruitment and placement agency for legal professionals.” Dkt. 5-1 at 5-6. Plaintiff Vicki Carol Bryant, proceeding pro se, is an attorney who was seeking work. Dkt. 1 at 6 (Compl.).

         On February 10, 2015, Bryant responded to one of Taylor's agency's job postings, leading to a telephone interview with Taylor. Id.; see Id. at 64. Although Bryant included a resume in her initial application, id. at 6, that resume was organized by type of work rather than by year, see Id. at 66-69, and stated that a “[m]ore [e]xtensive [c]urriculum [v]itae” was “available upon request, ” id. at 69. During the interview, Taylor asked Bryant for a “chronological resume listing every legal job” she had held-a request that Bryant now characterizes as “unreasonable.” Id. at 6. Bryant nonetheless prepared such a resume and submitted it to Taylor. Id.; see Id. at 72-78, 87. Bryant was not selected for that particular job. Id. at 6. Bryant later submitted her resume to Taylor's agency in response to other job postings, but “never received any replies.” Id. at 6.

         Bryant does not allege that these interactions with Taylor's agency involved any discriminatory intent. See Dkt. 11 at 3. Rather, she says, the initial telephone interview is relevant to this case because it gave Taylor an opportunity to infer from Bryant's voice that Bryant is African American. See id. at 4, 5. According to Bryant, Taylor also could have inferred Bryant's age and race by inspecting Bryant's various resumes, which describe the law degree she received from Howard University in 1985. Id. at 3; see Dkt. 1 at 69.

         What Bryant does challenge in this case is her nonselection for a position that Taylor's agency posted on October 20, 2015, which “s[ought] Portuguese-fluent attorneys for a review/translation project.” Dkt. 1 at 50; see Id. at 6. Bryant again submitted her resume (although not the chronological one that Taylor earlier had requested). Id. at 6; see Id. at 61-63. Bryant's submission prompted the following email exchange: On October 20, 2015, Bryant wrote to Taylor:

Good Afternoon,
I am fluent in Portuguese and have attached my docreview resume.
Regards,
Vicki C. Bryant, Esq.

Id. at 50. Eleven minutes later, Taylor replied:

Thank you for your interest in Pat Taylor and Associates, Inc. We will review your resume and if it meets our client's requirements, we will invite you in for an interview[.]

Id. at 51 (emphasis added). Six days later, on October 26, 2015, at 5:09 p.m., Bryant ...


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.