UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) DORETHA MCCALLUM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 21-1911 (ABJ) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, ) Secretary of the U.S. Department ) of Homeland Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Doretha McCallum is a Management and Program Analyst (“MPA”) at the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and she works in the Office of Partnership and Engagement (“OPE”) within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶¶ 1–2, 16. She alleges that the agency discriminated against her in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., on the basis of her race and gender, retaliated against her, and subjected her to a hostile work environment. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 140, 148, 158, 162–63. On February 1, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 13] (“Def.’s Mot.”). Plaintiff opposed the motion, and the matter is now fully briefed. See Pl.’s Opp. to Def.’s Mot. [Dkt. # 15] (“Pl.’s Opp.”); Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. [Dkt. # 17] (“Def.’s Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be DENIED with respect to plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims related to the reassignment of her duties, as well as her retaliation claim based on defendant’s failure to provide the necessary amount of time for her to meet with her EEO attorney. The Court will otherwise GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining discrimination and retaliation claims. BACKGROUND Plaintiff has been employed with DHS in the Washington, D.C. office since January 2010. Compl. ¶¶ 2–3, 16. Throughout this time, she has worked as a Management and Program Analyst (“MPA”) in the Office of Partnership and Engagement within ICE. Compl. ¶¶ 1–2, 16. Plaintiff alleges the agency discriminated against her on the basis of her race (African-American) and her gender (female), retaliated against her for engaging in EEO activity, and subjected her to a hostile work environment. 1 Compl. ¶¶ 5, 140, 148, 158, 162–63. Plaintiff’s allegations are primarily based on the conduct of two of her supervisors: Deputy Assistant Director (“DAD”) Barbara Gonzalez, who was plaintiff’s first line supervisor from 2017 to October 2019, and acting DAD Richard Rocha, who was supervising plaintiff by July 2019. See Compl. ¶¶ 18–19, 24(f), 49, 61; see Ex. 2 to Compl. [Dkt. # 1-2] (“Organization Charts”) at 5. Restructuring of Plaintiff’s Proposed Position Plaintiff complains of actions beginning in February 2017, when Gonzalez and Rocha proposed organizational charts that “attempt[ed] to restructure and assign the plaintiff a lower grade” while simultaneously “work[ing] hard to ensure that Rocha would be employed in a high grade, high-authority position.” Compl. ¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that Gonzalez and Rocha, both of whom are Hispanic, were “clearly close friends” and had developed a close relationship while working together …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals