Coclough v. Akal Security, Inc.
Civil Action No. 2016-2376
D.D.C.Mar 13, 2022Background
- Janice Coclough, a former Lead Court Security Officer employed by Akal Security on the USMS 12th Judicial Circuit contract (D.C. Courts), sued Akal and supervisors alleging sex and sexual-orientation discrimination (DCHRA), Title VII and DCHRA retaliation, and sexual harassment; she withdrew a Whistleblower Act claim.
- Akal was contractually required to follow client (D.C. Courts/USMS) directives; the parties’ CBA contains a carveout: client-directed removals are excepted from the CBA grievance/discipline procedures.
- After complaints by coworkers (Gloria Shelton, Erika Bumbry) and a June 10, 2016 training-room incident, the contracting officer’s representative (Parris) directed plaintiff’s removal from the contract; Akal investigated (Frost) and terminated Coclough effective July 26, 2016; she filed an EEOC charge on June 23, 2016 and appealed the removal.
- Coclough alleged workplace misconduct including misuse of surveillance cameras, intercom lewd comments, being ‘‘followed,’’ denial of overtime, and sexual comments by a coworker; Akal records show investigations into scheduling complaints but no contemporaneous reports documenting camera-zoom or similar sexualized camera use.
- Procedurally, defendants moved for summary judgment; the court disciplined plaintiff’s counsel for improperly filing numerous wholly redacted exhibits (later granted sealing for certain exhibits) and limited the record it would consider to exhibits on which defendants also relied.
- Holding: the Court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims—DCHRA discrimination (sex and sexual orientation), Title VII and DCHRA retaliation, and DCHRA sexual harassment—and granted the sealing relief described.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DCHRA sex & sexual-orientation discrimination (Counts IV & V) | Coclough says termination and removal from the contract were pretext for discrimination; points to adverse actions and comparators and alleged disparate treatment. | Akal says client (D.C. Courts/USMS) removed her from the contract, triggering the CBA carveout; termination was required and nondiscriminatory; proper comparators are those similarly removed by client. | SJ for defendants: no showing that Akal’s client-directed removal/termination was pretext for discrimination; most comparators not similarly situated. |
| Retaliation under Title VII and DCHRA (Counts II & VII) | Coclough contends her complaints, EEOC charge, and appeals led to adverse actions (overtime deprivation, administrative leave, termination). | Akal proffers legitimate nonretaliatory reasons (coworker complaints, investigation, client removal); no but-for causation shown for claimed adverse acts. | SJ for defendants: plaintiff failed to show but-for causation or pretext beyond temporal proximity; legitimate reasons stand. |
| DCHRA hostile-work-environment sexual harassment (Count VI) | Coclough relies on testimony about camera/intercom misuse, daily tracking/comments, rumors about her sexual orientation, and isolated sexual comments by a coworker to show a hostile environment. | Akal argues incidents are vague, not reported contemporaneously, not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and did not alter terms or conditions of employment. | SJ for defendants: alleged conduct, even if assumed true, amounts to isolated/insufficiently severe or pervasive incidents and fails as a matter of law. |
| Evidentiary/sealing procedure and record scope | Coclough submitted many exhibits under redaction as confidential and relied on them in opposition. | Akal argued procedural violation prejudiced it and sought many redacted exhibits disregarded; asked that facts be deemed admitted where unsupported. | Court enforced LCvR and standing order: granted sealing for specified exhibits but limited consideration to exhibits also relied on by defendants; plaintiff’s procedural lapses not excused. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate-treatment burden shifting)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment rule: burden of showing absence of genuine dispute)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and "scintilla" language)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext and jury inference analysis)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse actions in retaliation claims)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer liability for hostile work environment)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (same-sex harassment and hostile-work-environment principles)
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (actionable hostile work environment requires severe or pervasive conduct)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (courts must view summary judgment evidence in plaintiff-favorable light)