MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tanya
S. Chutkan United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
Ronald Holassie, a former lifeguard with the District of
Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation
(“DPR”), brings this suit against the District of
Columbia for engaging in discriminatory and retaliatory
conduct in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et
seq. (“Title VII”) and the D.C. Human Rights
Act, as amended, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401.01 et
seq. (“DCHRA”) (Count I), retaliation in
violation of the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act
(“DCWPA”), D.C. Code §§ 1-615.51 et
seq. (Count II), and unlawful invasion of privacy (Count
III).
The
District of Columbia (“the District”) moves,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 42.) For the reasons set forth below, the
court will GRANT the motion, in part, and DENY the motion, in
part.
I.
BACKGROUND
In May
of 2006, Carmen Jean-Baptiste, Holassie's mother, began
working as a lifeguard at DPR's Takoma Aquatic Center.
Byrd v. District of Columbia, 807 F.Supp.2d 37, 52
(D.D.C. 2011). In 2007, Jean-Baptiste sued the District of
Columbia, claiming that, during the course of her employment,
she experienced sexual harassment, a hostile work
environment, and eventually a wrongful and retaliatory
termination. Carmen Jean-Baptiste v. District of
Columbia, 11-cv-1587-RCL, ECF No. 51. In 2012, a jury
awarded Jean-Baptiste $3.5 million and returned an addendum
recommending that DPR “begin an EEO training program
for all DPR managers, ” revise its policies regarding
the handling of complaints, and conduct an internal audit of
compliance with DPR policies. Id. ECF No. 185.
Jean-Baptiste settled her lawsuit for a confidential amount
and the matter was dismissed in January 2014. Id.
ECF Nos. 254-55.
A.
Holassie's Employment with DPR
Holassie
began his employment with DPR as a summer lifeguard at Wilson
Aquatic Center in 2012. (ECF No. 44-15 (“Pl.'s
Resp. to Interrog. No. 5”) at 7.) He then worked at
Takoma Aquatic Center as a summer lifeguard in 2013 and 2014.
(Id.) According to Holassie, from 2012 to 2014, he
had no negative interactions with supervisors or co-workers,
negative performance reviews, or mediation meetings with
management. (Id. at 7-8.)
Holassie
alleges that, in summer 2015, DPR caused him to work in a
hostile work environment in retaliation for his mother's
protected activity. (ECF No. 44-1 (“Pl.'s Resp.
7(h)(1) Statement”) at ¶¶ 1-3.) In support of
his claims, Holassie proffers the following events:
• On June 9, 2015, Holassie was selected at random for a
performance audit by a third-party auditor hired by DPR to
perform surprise audits. (Id. at ¶¶
13-15.) It is undisputed that all lifeguards were subjected
to performance audits; and that the videotape of Holassie was
viewed only by the auditor and DPR's aquatic leadership
team. (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 21.)
• On July 10, 2015, Holassie, his brother, and another
lifeguard were involved in a “physical skirmish,
” during which Holassie tipped over a trash can and
used profanity. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) On July
14, 2015, Holassie's supervisor, Robert Allen, scheduled
a meeting with Holassie to discuss the incident.
(Id. at ¶ 7.)
• On July 21, 2015, Holassie had a meeting with his
supervisor regarding his leaving his assigned zone to find
his whistle. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.) The parties
dispute whether Holassie secured coverage before he left his
post. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.)
• On July 28, 2015, according to DPR, Holassie failed to
adhere to the schedule. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Holassie
maintains that he was on time for his assigned shift.
(Id.) On August 3, 2015, an employee conference was
held to discuss the matter. (Id. at ¶¶
11-12.)
Holassie
claims that at various points during the summer, he felt
uncomfortable on the evening shift and asked Allen to switch
him to the morning shift. (Id. at ¶ 13; ECF No.
42-4 (“Pl.'s Resp. to Interrog. No. 4”) at
5.) Allen denied his requests. (Id.)
On
August 3, 2015, Holassie told Allen that he felt targeted by
other employees. (Pl.'s Resp. to Interrog. No. 5 at 9.)
Allen then emailed Tyrell Morris, DPR's Director of
Aquatics, stating: “Ronald Holassie has expressed to me
that he feels as if he has been targeted by other employees
and is being harassed. What would be the official DPR
procedure course of action to take?” (ECF No. 44-7
(“Allen/Morris E-mail”) at 2.) On August 4, 2015,
Morris responded, informing Allen that he would be meeting
with Holassie later that day; Allen memorialized the
substance of Holassie's incidents and meetings in an
email to Morris and DPR's Aquatic Operations Manager.
(Id.; Pl.'s Resp. 7(h)(1) Statement at ¶
4.) At some point that day, Holassie rescheduled his meeting
with Morris to the following day, August 5, 2015. (Pl.'s
Resp. to Interrog. No. 5 at 10.)
The
morning of August 5, 2015, Holassie filed an EEOC complaint
against DPR. (Id.) He then met with Morris and other
DPR management employees that afternoon. (Id.)
According to Holassie, at the meeting he explained that he
had been “taunted and treated with unwarranted
hostility by his supervisors and staff.” (Id.)
Morris then read Allen's list of Holassie's alleged
incidents and complaints and stated that, effective
immediately, Holassie would be transferred to the Rumsey
Aquatic Center. (Id. at 10-11.) Holassie agreed to
the transfer and began working at the new location the
following day. (Id. at 11.)
B.
Holassie's 2015 Termination
On
August 17, 2015, Holassie learned that his last day at DPR
would be August 23, 2015. (ECF No. 44-16 (“Pl.'s
Resp. to Interrog. No. 6”) at 15.) He e-mailed Morris
to confirm, and Morris responded: “It is my
understanding that this is the date you provided to staff as
you were leaving to go back to school.” (ECF No. 44-10
(“Morris/Holassie E-mail”) at 2-3.) The parties
dispute whether the August 23, 2015 end date was expected.
(Pl.'s Resp. 7(h)(1) Statement at ¶¶ 16-17.)
In
support of its position that Holassie's employment was
always contemplated to end in August, the District relies on
the following facts: (1) DPR's personnel action form
indicated that Holassie's last day would not be later
than August 29, 2015 (ECF No. 42-9 (“Notification of
Personnel Action”)); (2) DPR's decision-to-hire
form, signed in December 2014, indicated that Holassie asked
to end his employment by “mid-August” (ECF No.
42-10 (“Summer 2015 Decision Action Form”)); and
(3) Holassie planned to return to school in Florida in August
and travelled to Florida at the end of August to check on his
financial aid status (ECF No. 42-6 (“Holassie Dep.
I”) at 69:1-70:5).
In
support of his position that his employment was not expected
to conclude in August, Holassie points to his testimony that
his return to college depended on his ability to receive
financial aid. (ECF No. 44-19 (“Holassie Dep.
II”) at 11:17-12:5, 36:5-9.) He also testified that in
prior years he had been told he was eligible for an extension
past August.[1] (Id. at 102:18-20,
103:10-104:15.)
C.
Holassie's 2016 Application
On
April 24, 2016, Holassie applied to work as a summer 2016 DPR
lifeguard. (ECF No. 44-13 (“2016 Holassie
Application”).) Holassie did not receive an offer and
he never returned to work for DPR. (Pl.'s Resp. to
Interrog. No. 6 at 15.)
The
District claims Holassie was not hired because: (1) a current
lifeguard certification is a mandatory prerequisite for
lifeguard employment and Holassie's certification expired
in January 2016, (see Pl.'s Resp. 7(h)(1)
Statement at ¶¶ 18-19); and (2) DPR had already
filled all the summer 2016 lifeguard positions, (see
Id. at ¶ 20).
Holassie
disputes the District's proffered reasons. With respect
to the certification, he relies on: (1) Morris' testimony
that certification was not a prerequisite for scheduling an
interview, (ECF No. 44-22 (“Morris Dep. I”) at
42:8-12; 43:13-18, 49:14-25), and (2) his own testimony that
in past years he enrolled in the recertification course after
HR notified him that he had been selected, (Holassie Dep. II
at 82:21-83:20). With respect to the availability of summer
2016 lifeguard positions, Holassie points to Morris'
testimony that by March 2016 he had “nearly sufficient
guards, ” but that he could not “speak with any
confidence” about where he was in the hiring process in
April 2016. (Morris Dep. I at 45:14-21, 47:18-48:10.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A.
...