Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rosario Rose Taylor v. Kathryn H. anderson

July 2, 2012

ROSARIO ROSE TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
KATHRYN H. ANDERSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eduardo C. Robreno, J.

MEMORANDUM

Rosario Rose Taylor ("Plaintiff") brings this pro se employment discrimination action against U.S. Census Bureau employees Kathryn H. Anderson, Patricia A. Dennis, Wesley R. Garrett, John Dozier, Kimberly Williams, and Jennifer Selby ("Defendants").*fn1 Defendants move for summary judgment. Because there is no evidence suggesting Plaintiff was subject to unlawful discrimination, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion.

BACKGROUND*fn2

I.

Plaintiff began working as an enumerator for the U.S. Census Bureau ("USCB") in April 2010. Taylor Dep. 16:9-13, Dec. 22, 2011. As an enumerator, Plaintiff visited residences and asked individuals to complete census questionnaires. Id. at 20:6-13.

When Plaintiff arrived for training, she learned her neighbor, Jennifer Selby, also worked at the USCB. Id. at 26:9-12. In December 2007, Selby crashed her vehicle into Plaintiff's fence. Id. at 26:22-28:15. Plaintiff believes Selby intentionally caused the accident. Id. at 29:12-15.

At the USCB, John Dozier directly supervised Plaintiff. Id. at 25:3-5. Plaintiff believes Dozier and Selby share an inappropriate sexual relationship. Id. at 49:17-20. And Dozier knew that Selby crashed her vehicle into Plaintiff's fence. Id. at 49:21-50:1.

Throughout her deposition, Plaintiff complained of the following adverse actions. Dozier misinformed her of the time training would begin in the morning.*fn3 Id. at 50:24-51:19. Dozier delayed issuing Plaintiff an identification badge by about twenty minutes. Id. at 58:19-59:7. Dozier sent Plaintiff to provide her fingerprints a second time and, when she returned, she did not receive certain census materials along with the other trainees, which delayed her compensation.*fn4 Id. at 62:5-64:1. Dozier misinformed Plaintiff regarding her completion of the census materials. Id. at 67:18. Dozier took issue with the way Plaintiff documented vacant houses on the census materials. Id. at 67:21-70:2. Plaintiff claims Dozier "tampered" with her census materials after she completed them.*fn5 Id. at 71:25-74:11. Plaintiff believes Dozier made her co-workers avoid her, but does not know what he said about her and did not directly witness Dozier making any statements about her to her co-workers. Id. at 75:11-19; 78:17-18. Dozier told Plaintiff she was "fired" after she told him that she did not believe the census group "got along." Id. at 80:12-81:18. Plaintiff was not terminated at this time.*fn6 Id. at 80:24-81:5.

In May 2010, Plaintiff claims Dozier did not assign her more work. Id. at 70:5-71:18. But by that time, nearly all the census-taking work in her district was finished. Palmer Aff. 3, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B, ECF No. 28. And the USCB terminated most of the enumerators around this time. Id. Despite complaints regarding the quality of Plaintiff's work and her inability to get along with co-workers, the USCB reassigned Plaintiff to a different district with more work to complete. Dennis Aff. 3, Mot. Summ J. Ex. B.

Plaintiff testified that the adverse actions she complains of in this lawsuit were retaliation for the fence incident. Taylor Dep. 50:2-12; 58:1-8. When asked for specific reasons why she alleged Defendants discriminated against her based on race, Plaintiff could not provide a single reason to support her allegations, save for her self-serving, bare accusations that Defendants discriminated against her and her unfounded suspicion that the U.S. Department of Commerce might have instructed Defendants to keep a "black Cuban" off the payroll. Id. at 86:9-89:11.

On August 1, 2010, the USCB officially terminated Plaintiff's employment because the census was completed. Notification of Personnel Action 1, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B. By that time, Plaintiff worked twenty-six days and about ninety-seven hours in pay status. Id.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

II.

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "New and Completed Second Amended Complaint," the operative complaint in this action. Defendants moved to dismiss. Following a hearing, the Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered Defendants to take Plaintiff's deposition and file a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.