Akosile v. Armed Forces Retirement Home
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51999
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Akosile, a Nigerian licensed practical nurse, worked for the Retirement Home from 2001 to 2008.
- Plaintiff was not a member of any collective bargaining unit during his tenure.
- A 2005 discrimination complaint based on national origin against the Retirement Home was settled in 2006.
- In 2007, allegations involving overtime procedures and patient care led to disciplinary discussions with supervisor Shirley Washington and Director of Nursing Elizabeth Weathington.
- March–April 2007 events included late arrival, a transfer from evening to day shift, and a sequence of communications about leave and alleged AWOL status.
- Plaintiff filed suit asserting libel, Title VII harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; defendant moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether libel claim is barred by sovereign immunity | Akosile asserts libel claim against the United States-based Retirement Home. | Libel claims are excluded from the FTCA waiver; no waiver for libel exists. | Granted defendant; libel claim dismissed |
| Whether harassment/hostile work environment under Title VII is proven | Harassment by Washington and Weathington created a discriminatory hostile environment. | Actions were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment terms; not motivated by sex. | Granted defendant; no Title VII harassment claim |
| Whether alleged harassment violated a collective bargaining agreement | Harassment implicated the Local 3090 agreement. | Plaintiff was not a member of the union; no factual dispute on membership. | Granted defendant; no CBA claim |
| Whether plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action under Title VII discrimination theory | Emails, AWOL charges, leave actions, and shifts constituted adverse actions. | Actions did not constitute adverse actions; no tangible harm or pay loss. | Granted defendant; no adverse employment actions supporting discrimination |
| Whether plaintiff can establish retaliation under Title VII | Retaliation for a prior EEO/Title VII complaint occurred. | No protected activity proven nor causal link shown; insufficient prima facie case. | Granted defendant; no retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (sovereign immunity generally bars suit absent consent)
- Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (1953) (FTCA immunity carve-outs and limitations)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard of no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (burden-shifting framework in summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (non-movant must show specific facts; mere speculation is insufficient)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (standard for hostile environment claims in workplace)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile environment standard; severity and pervasiveness required)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (isolated incidents insufficient for hostile environment claim)
- Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (discrimination framework and pretext analysis in McDonnell Douglas)
- Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (McDonnell Douglas framework and evidence considerations)