UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CHARLESWORTH RAE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 15–cv-0736 (KBJ) ) CHILDREN’S NATIONAL MEDICAL ) CENTER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Charlesworth Rae, an African-American man of Antiguan descent, was employed as an Investigational Research Pharmacist at Children’s National Medical Center (“CNMC”) from February of 2010 until CNMC terminated his employment in December of 2014. (See 1st Am. Compl. (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 22-1, ¶¶ 3, 5, 7.) Rae has brought the instant action against CNMC and various CNMC employees (collectively, “Defendants”) under both federal and state law, alleging that he was not promoted, and was eventually terminated, due to his race and national origin, and also that Defendants ultimately fired him in retaliation for his having repeatedly expressed legitimate concerns about CNMC’s pharmacy operations and for filing a police report accusing his supervisor of assault. (See id. ¶¶ 46–78.) Rae’s claims have been narrowed through the course of this litigation, such that the only claims that are still at issue are those that he asserts for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Counts I and II); (2) racially discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code Ann. §§ 2-1401.01–1404.04 (Count III); (3) racially discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count IV); and (4) racially discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–e-17 (Count VI). Counts I–IV are asserted against CNMC, Dr. Sarah Donegan (Rae’s supervisor), Dr. Ursula Tachie-Menson (Donegan’s supervisor), Zandra Russell (a CNMC Human Resources representative), and Darryl Varnado (CNMC’s Executive Vice President and Chief People Officer). (See id. at 1 n.1.) 1 Count VI is asserted only against CNMC. (See id.) On March 15, 2017, after discovery had closed, this Court referred this matter to a magistrate judge for full case management through the district’s random-assignment process. (See Min. Entry of Sept. 6, 2016; Min. Order of Mar. 15, 2017.) The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, who subsequently granted in part a motion that Rae filed seeking to reopen discovery. (See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 40, at 4, 7.) The parties proceeded to engage in a renewed period of discovery, and once they had resolved all of their discovery disputes, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (See 2d. Joint Status Report, ECF No. 58; see also Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 59.) On March 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge Robinson issued the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) that is appended hereto as Appendix A; in that Report, Magistrate Judge Robinson recommends that Defendants’ summary judgment motion be granted in its entirety with respect to Rae’s remaining claims against the remaining defendants. (See R & R, ECF No. 71, at 2.) 1 Page number references to the documents that the parties have filed refer to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals