Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION LAURA WASHINGTON , Plaintiff, Civil Action No. AW-01-CV-109 vs. LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS, Secretary, Department of Treasury Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Defendant's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment. No hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. Upon consideration of the arguments made in support of, and opposition to, the respective motion, the Court makes the following determinations. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Laura Washington, brings this employment discrimination suit against the Internal Revenue Service ("I.R.S.") alleging discrimination based on sex, race, age and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Plaintiff is a black female, over the age of forty, and physically disabled as of 1995.1 Plaintiff alleges discrimination in hiring and promotion in that she was passed her over three times for a new job, despite her qualifications. She alleges that those selected for the positions are white males, under the age of forty, and less qualified. She also alleges racial discrimination in discipline and retaliation in that she filed a complaint with the EEO

Plaintiff does not indicate her specific age or her specific disability. But for the purposes of this Motion, the Court will assume all pleaded facts to be true as alleged.

1

and, thereafter, Defendant re-validated her performance appraisal,2 selected her work for workload review,3 and issued her an Official Letter of Admonishment for failure to file taxes and failure to respond to requests for information regarding her failure to file. Plaintiff claims physical and emotion injuries and requests that the Court appoint her to one of the position for which she applied, award her back-pay, award her $300,000.00 in compensatory damages for emotional and physical injuries, and rescind that Official Letter of Admonishment. At the time Plaintiff filed her Complaint she was still employed with the I.R.S. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims arguing that Plaintiff has raised no material factual disputes, that re-validation and workload review do not constitute adverse employment actions, that Plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case regarding any of the complained actions, that Defendant has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions, and that there is not evidence legally sufficient to establish a pretext. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants summary judgment motion. II. DISCUSSION In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must "draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, including questions of credibility and of the weight to be accorded to particular evidence." Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 520, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991) (citations omitted). Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

A re-validation is a subsequent validation of an employee's performance as reflected in his or her performance appraisal. According to I.R.S. policy, a re-validation is completed if the performance appraisal is older than six months and the employee's manager determines that the appraisal accurately reflects the employee's performance at the time of the subsequent validation.
3

2

A workload review is a supervisory review of an employee's assigned cases. 2

that the entry of summary judgment is proper, "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Cray Communications, Inc. v. Novatel Computer Systems, Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 393 (4th Cir.1994); see LeBlanc v. Cahill, 153 F.3d 134 (4th Cir.1998). The absence of any admissible evidence establishing the fact of discrimination is sufficient to shift the burden of production to the Plaintiff. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure

Download Laura Washington v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of Treasury.pdf

Maryland Law