UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUSAN M. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-701 (JEB) ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2011, Plaintiff Susan Morris filed this lawsuit against her former employer, the Environmental Protection Agency, principally alleging that she was fired because of her race. Seven years later, the case went to trial on a much narrower issue: whether a seven-day suspension Morris suffered several years before her termination was discriminatory. A jury decided that it was and awarded her $25,000 in damages. All that is left now is Plaintiff’s Motion for Equitable Relief. Here, she asks the Court to order alterations to her personnel file, require backpay and reinstatement, and award her nearly $500,000 in attorney fees and costs. Concluding that Morris is entitled to some — but not all — of the relief she seeks, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion. I. Background The relevant facts and history of this litigation are known to any reader of the past Opinions in this case. See, e.g., Morris v. McCarthy, 825 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Morris v. Pruitt, 308 F. Supp. 3d 153 (D.D.C. 2018). The Court nevertheless returns to the field of battle to provide necessary context for the parties’ dispute over equitable relief. The facts underlying this 1 suit — as elicited at trial — are recounted first before the procedural history is described in some detail. A. Factual Background Susan Morris is a white woman who used to work as a supervisory program manager at EPA’s Office of Civil Rights. See Trial Tr. (10/30/17 AM) at 98:6–98:24, 104:10–104:17. Things seemed to be going well for her in that role until a conference call in August 2007. See Trial Tr. (10/30/17 PM) at 52:9–25. The subject of the fateful call was a new advisory group Morris was involved in organizing for EPA’s gay and lesbian employees. Id. at 54:11–19. Unlike the dreary conference calls common in the professional world, this one was heated. Id. at 66:1–8. The source of the clash was Plaintiff’s disagreement with EPA employee Nancy Tommelleo about what the group should be named. While the call lasted only thirty minutes, its fallout would be felt for months. Tommelleo, upset with how she felt Morris had treated her, sent her supervisor a memorandum criticizing her behavior during the call. Id. at 76:6–77:17. The supervisor then drafted her own memorandum summarizing the concerns about Morris and sent it along with Tommelleo’s to Morris’s supervisor, Karen Higginbotham. Id. at 79:23–82:9. Higginbotham, a black woman who was then the Director of EPA’s Office of Civil Rights, did not immediately give Morris copies of the memos. Id. at 67:21–70:12. When she sent her the memos several months later, Higginbotham directed Morris not to respond to them; rather, she would address the matter herself. Id. at 73:21–74:22. Some months later, after Higginbotham had still not acted, Morris sent an ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals