U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Atlanta District Office
Taylor Reed, ) EEOC No. 410-2021-00451X
Complainant, )
) Agency No. ARS-2021-00107
v. )
) Administrative Judge: Elise L. Jones
Thomas J. Vilsack, ) Secretary, )
U.S. Department of Agriculture, ) Date: March 23, 2022 Agency. )
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
You are notified that on _________________ (Date), at _________ (time), or as soon thereafter as the Complainant can be heard, before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Atlanta District Office, the Complainant will bring on for hearing her Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons stated in the attached Motion.
Dated this ___ day of March, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Taylor Reed,
Complainant in pro per
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Atlanta District Office
Taylor Reed, ) EEOC No. 410-2021-00451X
Complainant, )
) Agency No. ARS-2021-00107
v. )
) Administrative Judge: Elise L. Jones
Thomas J. Vilsack, ) Secretary, )
U.S. Department of Agriculture, ) Date: March 23, 2022 Agency. )
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOW COMES Taylor Reed, Complainant, and files this Motion for Summary Judgment, and hereby avers as follows:
- Complainant, Taylor Reed (“Complainant”), brings this action against her former employer the United States Department of Agriculture (“Agency”), for sex (pregnant) discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
- She claims she was treated differently from similarly situated employees that were not pregnant. She was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct that unreasonable interfered with the work environment and created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment due to her pregnancy and when she reported the harassment to management, it retailed against her by treating her differently than others, unreasonably interfering with her work, administering her a lesser performance rating and terminating her employment.
- The undisputed facts demonstrate that the complainant was treated unfairly, harassed and the reasons provided by management for her termination were either not factual or backed by non-standard procedures made up by the management official who was subjecting her to the harassment and discrimination.
Standard of Review
- Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Complainant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
- In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the Agency’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The Complainant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the Agency has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof.
- Regardless of whether the Complainant accompanies her summary judgment motion with affidavits, the motion may, and should, be granted so long as whatever is before the Commission demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary judgment is satisfied.
- The Complainant bears the initial responsibility of informing the Commission of the basis for her motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which she believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The undisputed facts are set out in this Motion.
Material Facts Without a Genuine Issue
- Complainant was treated differently from similarly situated employees not in protected group
- Ms. Snipes proposed office reassignment in which the complainant was asked to move to the office that posed health risks to Ms. Snipes; the other technician was given a choice to stay in her current office while complainant was not.
- Complainant’s furniture quote was within the assigned budget and it was still challenged by Ms. Snipes. (ROI pg. 851 – 856, 901 – 906)
- Other evidence that indicates that the agency’s actions may have been motivated by discrimination.
- Dr. Tillman attempted to schedule in-person instrument on or around July 13, 2020 during the pandemic, even though the agency was in maximized telework posture and Dr. Tillman knew that the complainant would not be able to participate.
- A reason provided to the complainant for her termination was:
- Dr. Tillman instructed her to pick up the files for the new report. Despite that instruction, she pushed back and attempted to have a colleague bring the documents to her home. (ROI pg. 56 – 57).
The facts show:
- That the complainant arranged pick up of the files via phone with Ms. Burgess prior to receiving instruction from Dr. Tillman.
- That management knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action within its control.
- Complainant informed her immediate supervisor, Dr. Tillman, that she was uncomfortable reporting to Ms. Snipes, a non-supervisor, because there were several instances when Ms. Snipes had given her misinformation on policy and procedure. Dr. Tillman continued to have complainant report to Ms. Snipes.
- Complainant was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical
conduct involving the protected class.
- Dr. Tillman was unaware that maternity leave was voluntary. (ROI pg. 829 and
- The complainant was summoned from working in the lab to attend an unsolicited meeting about her taking maternity leave that Dr. Tillman assumed was required.
- Ms. Snipes emailed the complainant unsolicited leave policies and questioned the administrative office about her participation in the leave donor program.
- The harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or
effect of unreasonable interfering with the work environment and/or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
- Being a non-essential employee during the pandemic, complainant was told by Ms. Snipes, an essential employee, to come on-site to pick up and drop reports.
- Complainant submitted her requested accomplishments narrative and it was returned on multiple times requesting that she change it.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Complainant respectfully requests this Honorable Commission to grant this Motion for Summary Judgment, award Complainant backpay to date, issue an order of specific performance compelling Agency to change Complainant’s termination to resignation, and award Complainant such further relief as this Commission deems necessary and proper.
Dated this ___ day of March, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Taylor Reed,
Complainant in pro per
VERIFICATION
I, Taylor Reed, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.
_________________________________
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of March, 2022.
______________________________
Notary Public
________________________________________
(Printed name of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: ____________________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )