NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington D.C., 20001

CLARENCE BALDWIN   §

Plaintiff,   §

§

v.   § Case No.: 1:21-cv-02646

§

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM,   §

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF   §

ENERGY   §

Defendant.   §

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Please take notice that on the ____ day of February 2022 at _________ (am/pm), or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above court, Plaintiff will and hereby does move the Court for an Order granting summary judgment in his favor and against the named Defendant.

The Motion will be based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying memorandum, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of the Motion.

Dated this ____ day of February, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Clarence Baldwin,

Plaintiff in pro per


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington D.C., 20001

CLARENCE BALDWIN   §

Plaintiff,   §

§

v.   § Case No.: 1:21-cv-02646

§

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM,   §

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF   §

ENERGY   §

Defendant.   §

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW Clarence Baldwin, Plaintiff, and files this Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant, and for cause would show this Court as follows:

STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

Summary judgment is appropriate only if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and … the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, and a moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law only if the nonmoving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, draw all reasonable inferences in her favor, and eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284, 1288 (D.C.Cir. 1998) (en banc).

The Agency discriminated against Complainant based on race (African-American), (male), and/or reprisal (prior EEO activity) when: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act.

ELEMENTS OF A RETALIATION CLAIM

A retaliation claim challenging action taken because of EEO-related activity has three elements:

(1) Protected activity: “participation” in an EEO process or “opposition” to discrimination Engage in Protected Activity those who tell their employer of their intention to file a charge or lawsuit, even if the filing is not ultimately made EEOC compliant, ROI page 182 e-mail letter to Complainant Supervisor Mr. Akladus Maher Exhibits 50 -51

(2) Materially adverse action taken by the employer; and Work-Related Actions. The most obvious types of adverse actions are and discharge. Types of adverse actions may include negative or lowered evaluations ROI Exhibits.  And termination letter ROI Exhibits

(3) Requisite level of causal connection First, the obvious: Perjury is a crime, and so is obstruction of justice the agency has admitted to this crime this e-mail was sent to the agency by the complainant on August 27, 2019 is the only reasons that agency stated the facts in the final agency decision was because of Complainant’s e-mail EEOC Investigative Affidavit page 108 of 245 of the ROI Mr. Marcum stated that I became aware of this compliant on October 18, 2018 when I received an e-mail from Latif Doman (EEO Investigator) requesting me to complete this affidavit. Prior to that I had no Knowledge.

The EEO Counselor’s Report indicates that an EEO counselor interviewed Marcum regarding Complainant’s informal EEO complaint on December 21, 2017. Very direct evidence the agency has even admitted to his own perjury Mr. Marcum on bottom page 17 and top page 18 of the agency (FAD) their needs to be an investigation by the DOJ or OSC how can you still give this person credibility to his statement after becoming aware of a fraudulent and perjury Statement, the complainant has over 100 affidavit statement page.

The agency own above statement in the Final Agency Decision between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Mr. Robert Marcum was very aware of the causal connection this is why he committed perjury statement. The agency even admitted to his perjury statement under oath. The report tof investigation has established evidence of perjury statement. Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing.  108-122 of 245 ROI. The complainant evidence has shown cover up, tricks, fraudulent Statement in the record and is requesting and investigation by (OSC) perjury statement in the report of investigation question 6 when ask how did you become aware of Complainant’s formal complaint of discrimination he stated when the (EEO Investigator email him. Question 9.1 my supervisor telework every Thursday and Friday and didn’t come to work at all in December and only 4 days in November and never in January of 2018. Continuing perjury statement question 8.2.1 question 8.3.1 stating he approved the use of the PMD budget to train Complainant, contractor didn’t train GS-13 in the government question 10.2 in reference to FEMA. The complainant was the very first one to volunteer for the FEMA mission there’s was no way that’s I the complainant could not volunteer when people were dying and the agency was not training me or provide any work assignments the agency stated that no one else could go

He was given unsatisfactory on three elements of her mid-year performance review on the complainant performance review should had been in place within 30 days of coming on board email from first line supervisor Mr. Maher dated June 26, 2017 the complainant stated employment with the department of energy on February 12, 2017 Exhibit 52

He did not receive adequate training for deficiency and delinquent account of Record hill, the agency stated and infection of the letter of termination for August 22, 24 21 days after being assigned the account clearly pretext reasons.

If Complainant was rated unsatisfactory, her comparators too should have been similarly rated either in the mid-year evaluation or final year evaluation or in both.  But they were not. Every task where for two employees to complete for each infection on the letter of termination Exhibits 53

ELEMENTS OF DISCRIMINATION

The most commonly used method of proving discrimination is the three-part burden shifting test that evolved in four U.S. Supreme Court decisions.  See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981); St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).  

Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the complainant must show a prima facie case of discrimination exists.  That means the complainant must present enough evidence to establish a minimal basis to believe discrimination occurred.  If the complainant makes such a showing, then the agency must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action it took against the complainant.  After the agency has provided its reason, the complainant must present evidence that the agency’s reason for its action is false.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S TRAINING PROGRAMS

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.

On the issue of DOE training, the allegation the complainant has attracted exhibits of evidence from Freedom of Information Act that’s the agency took over 200 days to give  complainant (FOIA) request documentation. Exhibits 48 are 7 email from Sarika Moudgil in reference to the account called record hill which is also direct evidence of when the agency just started to give the complainant and account ROI page 165-168 asking Sarika Moudgil do she need me to do anything with the account that was very delinquent she stated no, she wasn’t sure of her job duties and she didn’t even what to sign her affidavit or answer any of the question Exhibit Affidavit ROI page            had to send an email to the office of civil right to have her sign her paper work. This is only after complainant threatening complainant supervisor with and EEO compliant because the agency wasn’t training the complainant attachment. The complainant has also attached Exhibits 49 are 6 email asking Mr. Jeffery Williams to please let the complainant work in risk management this is all in the month of June 2017. Exhibits 50 is the letter to my supervisor telling him if he didn’t give my and account to work on I will fill and compliant which is also page 182 of 245 ROI Exhibits 51 is another email telling my Supervisor that I would file and EEO compliant on November 1, 2017. Exhibits 52 are email in reference to the mismanagement of the Record Hill account the agency assign to the complainant on August 1, 2017 after threatening management with and EEOC compliant the complainant first line supervisor EEO didn’t give any credit to the complainant who had completed over 25 classes ROI Exhibits from project management for director, Risk management and other classes more than any other Loan Administrator. The complainant was the very first one to volunteer for FEMA relief doing the disaster while people where dying the agency sad no one else could go another fraudulent Statement the complainant a veteran and emergency medical technician.

AGENCY’S PRETEXT REASONS FOR DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION

The tasks were created and assigned to two loan administrators but the appellant was the only one against whom adverse action was proposed. Direct evidence report of investigation page 191, 192, 193, of 245.

Agency pretext reasons for Termination on August 22-24, 2017

  1. Fact number 1 is direct evidence of the agency Mr. Marcum proposing official who recommended termination stated that we need to formally evaluate his performance and document the results Assignments on Documentum and NARA are fine page 216 of 245 (ROI) email dated July 28, 2017 therefore, before we can put him on a plan, we have to evaluate and document where he is deficient so how can you even give a performance evaluation when you are not even documenting where the employee progress is. The is also why this direct evidence is dated July 28, 2017 is because the complainant sent and email to his first-line supervisor Mr. Maher Exhibits 50 also page 182 of 245 (ROI)  Exhibits 52 is and e-mail from Linda Vaster Management Analyst stating that the complainant plan should have been in place 30 days of coming on board but as stated in my statement of fact the agency was not training but only worried about Mr. Donald Trump of President shutting down the Loan Program Office RIO page     Discrimination
  2. Fact number 2 the complainant first line supervisor stated that Mr. Clarence Baldwin can work on other projects he stated I told Kelly that you have capacity to work on other projects. You can do them and maybe even help other team members EX       Also when do you put probationary employees on a plan Mr. Marcum is stating if an employee is getting an overall rating below direct knowledge and evidence that Mr. Marcum was aware of Appellant status.
  3. Fact number 3 On August 22-24, 2017 page 221 of 245 ok assign complainant and his first account on August 1, 2017   21 days later the agency use this as there 1st infection on the letter of termination.
  4. Fact number 4 from August 1, 2017 until August 22, 2017 are 15 work days
  5. Fact number 5 Mr. Maher Akladus was home teleworking on the 3,4,10,11,17,18, of August 2017 that’s every Thursday and Friday of August. Discrimination
  6. Fact number 6 on the 8th of August the complainant and Ms. Kelly Hyman training for 30 minute on the account after just received the account call Record Hill.
  7. Fact number 7 on the 22 of August the appellant and Ms. Kelly Hyman where training on the account
  8. Fact number 8 there are over 300 task created and cancel task in the agency loan program office.
  9. Fact number 9 and ever has a loan administrator had counseling or adverse action proposed for hitting the wrong tab or key stoke on a stationary computer or lab top and the appellant list of loan administrators will testify to that fact along with discovery.

Disparities of treatment

  1. Fact number 10 the account that the agency give the appellant to work on had many late ROI page 165-168 covenants being delinquent appellant was ready to start cleaning up this delinquent account page 195 of (ROI) email to Sarika Moudgil portfolio managers who had her own issues and EEOC compliant against the agency in reference to her performance evaluation.  
  2. Fact number 11 the contractor Alexander Mandaro is the person who had the account Record Hill in which he even stated himself that they are several delinquent covenants. The agency issues the delinquent account to the complainant. Exhibits
  3. Fact number 12 this is the same person contractor that Mr. Marcum stated on his EEOC investigation DOE Case Number 18-00189-HQ-LP page 115 of 245 (ROI) statement 8.3.1 I approved assigning a contractor to train Complainant, Therefore, to be clear, I approved the use of PMD budget to be spent on having an outside contractor utilize time to train Complainant perjury, he approved this contractor to train a government employee that’s their reality the agency’s that the appellant was on probation this is a criminal act to state on and EEOC Investigative affidavit under the penalty of perjury dated 11/13/18
  4. Fact number 13 the contractor was already there working on the account. Mr.     Marcum committed perjury statement saying he approved the budget for the  contractor to train the appellant look no one else sign off the PMD budget nothing but false accusations by management. The task on August 22, 2017 was for Clarence Baldwin/ and Lannice Jones email from Sarika Moudgil I guess this is why the GS-9 Lannice Jones who was on probation was promoted to GS-11 within her probationary year or the week after her year was up Nothing happen to this employee but a promotion.

The agency second pretext reasons for termination on October 18, 2017

  1. Fact number 1 The agency stated that the appellant incorrectly process a task requiring management approval and presenting incomplete documents to Hernan Cortes (Assistance Director) The portfolio managers look at the documents and stated to leave the folder on Hernan Cortes desk but do not send out the email until everything is sign and the approval is in quicksilver no harm she’s the PM.
  2. Fact number 2 this lapse was discovered by the Portfolio Manager who retroactively obtained the necessary approval
  3. Fact number 3 the appellant and the contractor Alexander Mendaro was also assigned the task email from Sarika Moudgil page 191, 192 of the (ROI)
  4. Fact number 4 no counseling for the contactor Alexander Mandaor the Sarika Moudgil PM for telling Mr. Baldwin the appellant to leave the folder or any other Loan Administrator when each task was created by two employee exhibits
  5. Fact number 5 only the appellant was stated to have adverse action on him for leaving a folder on a desk when he was told to do so just didn’t send out the email. E-mail to complainant first line supervisor Mr. Maher Exhibits
  6. Fact number 6 appellant had no idea that the agency would use this pretext reason because the appellant did nothing wrong. The appellant stated the fact in the email to Mr. Maher on October 20, 2018 at 10:00 am page 184 of the (ROI) the agency later use this reason for second infection for leaving a folder on a desk notice of termination.
  7. Fact number 7 the agency even ask the portfolio manager Sarika Moudgil and she admitted to the fact that she told the complainant to leave the folder nothing happen this is why the agency didn’t have any documentation of evidence to show any harm at all just another false statement. ROI page 184 of 245 is and email on Friday October 20, 2017 10:00 AM complainant explanation that the complainant was told to leave the folder and even after the agency know of this fact they still use this as a reason just leaving a fold on a desk, stating just didn’t send out and email 100% pretext

The agency 3rd pretext reason for termination on January 12, 2017

  1. Fact number 1 The appellant never created this task the appellant’s omputer was down and the contractor competed this task right from his own computer at his desk
  2. Fact Number 2 the appellant ask for this in his FOIA request and there was no task created by the appellant fact.
  3. Fact number 3 this pretext reason for January 12, 2018 is fraudulent act again perjury at its best.
  4. Fact number 4 the records shows false statements boarder line criminal acts of perjury statement everywhere in management response which is only Mr. Robert Marcum perjury statement.
  5. Fact Number 5 Mr. Marcum stated in his affidavit he approved the use of PMD budget to be spent on having an outside contractor train.
  6.  Fact number 6 appellant this is a false statement and also a violation of training policy to have contractor train GS-13 in the Federal government.
  7. Fact Number 7 there was no training provide to the appellant by the contractor Alexander the agency account has past due covenant email from contractor Alexander Mandaro Exhibits 54
  8. Fact number 8 This is an email From the contractor Alexander Mandaro you would think he was the supervisor I guess that why the agency tried to fire Mr. Akladus Maher: To: Cc: Subject: ·oate:

Mandaro Alexander (CON1R) Akladus Maher Moudgil Sarika Record Hill Wind – Clarence Training/ Progress Friday, January 12, 2018 11:45;07 AM   (FOIA) Exhibit

  • Fact number 9 fact number 8 evidence that the appellant has stated that he didn’t put anything into the system. The agency committed fraudulent Statement and discriminated against the complainant.
  • Fact number 10 is direct evidence of the statement that complainant had been stating in his stated page 104 of the (ROI)
  • Fact number 11 is facts that Linda Vawter stated Exhibits 52 that my plan should have been in place within 30 days of coming on board but again management was discriminated retaliating against Complainant and only was worried about their jobs and if Donald Trump the president was shutting down the Loan Program Office and worried about making their mortgage payment while appellant was evicted from his apartment facts. There was no training, management would have this dumb found look on their face when complainant would ask in the meeting are their going to be any type of training for the Loan Administrator every once else,  other employees look like they were scared to even ask a question.
  • Fact number 12 is and e-mail from the appellant asking about the out dated train book that they just give him 10 months after being on the job.
  • Fact number 13 The appellant tried to have this pretext reason as fraud action by Mr. Robert Marcum in his EEOC compliant but the Office of civil right didn’t accept the fact and e-mail

was sent out to the office of civil right in reference to the fact asking them to check with Information Techs the appellant (FOIA) reveal that there was no entry by the appellant from his computer its went was down after 2:00 and this task again was created by the contactor Alexander Mandaro Mr. Marcum right hand man.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

From the foregoing, Plaintiff has demonstrated that there exists no genuine dispute of material fact as he can prove all the facts in his Complaint. REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant this Motion for Summary Judgment, award Plaintiff such equitable relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances, and award Plaintiff such further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated this ____ day of February, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Clarence Baldwin,

Plaintiff in pro per

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 )