38 F. Supp. 3d 35
D.D.C.2014Background
- Linda McCauley, an Administrative Services Specialist at DOI, was terminated May 29, 2009; agency cited excessive absences and AWOL.
- McCauley alleged termination was retaliation/discrimination after she filed harassment/reprisal complaints and raised claims including FMLA leave denial, failure to accommodate, workers’ compensation denial, unpaid accrued leave, and due-process violations.
- She pursued administrative appeals (MSPB and EEOC); EEOC upheld MSPB in November 2011, finding termination proper and non-discriminatory.
- McCauley filed this pro se suit in December 2011; defendant moved for summary judgment in July 2013.
- The Court twice warned McCauley (Fox/Neal notice) about consequences of failing to respond to a summary-judgment motion and directed her to Rule 56; she filed a limited, non-substantive opposition and later sought more time and counsel.
- The Court granted a brief extension but McCauley never meaningfully disputed defendant’s statement of material facts; the Court treated facts as undisputed and granted summary judgment for the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was termination unlawful discrimination/retaliation? | McCauley contends termination was improper and retaliatory after she complained of harassment/reprisal. | Termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons: excessive absences and AWOL. | Court held no genuine dispute that termination was for legitimate reasons; discrimination/retaliation claims fail. |
| Did failure to accommodate / FMLA leave claims preclude summary judgment? | McCauley alleges denial of FMLA Leave Share, and denial of reasonable accommodations. | Defendant maintains absences, not accommodation denial, motivated action; plaintiff offered no evidence creating dispute. | Court found plaintiff failed to produce evidence; claims not opposed with admissible facts, summary judgment granted. |
| Were plaintiff’s due-process and other employment-related claims viable? | Asserts violations of due process and entitlement to unpaid leave/pay. | Defendant relies on termination for absenteeism and administrative record showing proper procedures. | Court treated facts as undisputed and concluded no material factual issues; claims dismissed. |
| Procedural: Did pro se plaintiff’s failure to respond warrant treating facts as admitted? | McCauley sought more time and counsel and requested de novo review but did not substantively rebut facts. | Defendant argued plaintiff failed to meet Rule 56 burden to show genuine dispute; Court may deem facts admitted under local rule. | Court applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and LCvR 7(h), deemed facts undisputed, and granted summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (district court must advise pro se party of consequences of failing to respond to dispositive motion)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden and nonmoving party must show genuine dispute)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standards for summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant, but courts may credit record evidence)
- Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.D.C. 2013) (failure to come forward with evidence supports grant of summary judgment)
- Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (standard for drawing inferences at summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (plaintiff must show employer’s reason is pretext to survive summary judgment)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (plaintiff must show pretext or that proffered reason is not true)
- Poindexter v. FBI, 737 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (appointment of counsel in civil cases rests in court’s discretion)