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.

Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Yuri J. Stoyanov

March 15, 2013

RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ET AL.
v.
YURI J. STOYANOV



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Deborah K. Chasanow United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for review in this employment discrimination case is the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by Defendant Ray Mabus. (ECF No. 16). The issues have been fully briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion, which will be construed as one for summary judgment, will be granted.

I.Background

This case is one of more than a dozen suits filed by Plaintiff Yuri Stoyanov and his twin brother, Aleksandr, against many of these Defendants.*fn1 The Stoyanovs were born in Russia in 1955. Plaintiff has worked as a scientist at the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division ("NSWCCD") from 1987 to the present. Aleksandr worked there as a scientist from 1989 to 2003.

In each lawsuit, the brothers allege that they were discriminated against in a variety of ways because of their age, national origin, and in retaliation for filing charges of discrimination. In this case, as in all others prior, the alleged discrimination and retaliation took the form of denied promotions, undesired work assignments, and restrictions placed on the brothers' ability to pursue claims they were bringing before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

Because the cases Plaintiff and his brother filed had become so voluminous, the court entered an order restricting the brothers to one active case at a time. (ECF No. 12 in Civil Action No. AMD-06-1244). Accordingly, this case was placed on the inactive-unassigned docket on August 13, 2007. (ECF No. 2). It was transferred to the active docket on October 14, 2010. (ECF Nos. 5-6). In every case in which a dispositive motion has been filed, Plaintiff's claims have either been dismissed or summary judgment has been entered against Plaintiff, and the Fourth Circuit has upheld those decisions.*fn2 Plaintiff's case before Judge Bennett covered alleged discrimination during the period from November 1989 through early 2002; Plaintiff's case before Judge Davis complained of alleged discrimination occurring between spring 2002 and December 2002. Before Judge Quarles, Plaintiff alleged discrimination during the period between spring 2003 and spring 2004. In Plaintiff's case before Judge Nickerson, he alleged discrimination claims for the time period between March 2004 and July 2004. In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges many of the same kinds of discriminatory and retaliatory actions as he presented in his previous four suits. This time, he covers the time period between November 2004 and December 2005.

Here, as in the case before Judge Davis and all others, Plaintiff's claims are basically that: on the basis [of] his age, national origin and/or retaliation for his having engaged in protected activity, the Navy refused to promote or reassign plaintiff. Plaintiff feels aggrieved by his inability to secure a promotion to an ND-5 level position,*fn3 or a reassignment that might lead to a better opportunity for such a promotion, in some cases because he was allegedly denied the opportunity to apply and in others because another candidate was selected over plaintiff. He essentially argues that every occasion on which an ND-5 vacancy became available and he was not promoted was an incident of discrimination.

Stoyanov v. Winter, No. AMD-06-1244, 2008 WL 6722765, at *2

(D.Md. Aug. 11, 2008). He sets out these allegations in fourteen "claims":

Claim #1 -- Defendants Gary Jebsen, Kevin Wilson, and Bruce Crock denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to Sung Han on December 7, 2004. Claim #2 -- Mr. Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to Thomas McCain on December 7, 2004.

Claim #3 -- Defendants Charles Giacchi and Charles Behrle denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Technical Operations Manager position that was assigned to Mr. J. Beach on November 15, 2004 Claim #4 -- Defendants Jebsen, Wilson, and Crock denied Plaintiff "incentive demo pay points" under the Defense Personnel Demonstration Project for fiscal year 2004. Claim #5 -- Mr. Jebsen denied Plaintiff the opportunity to apply for an ND-5 Program Manager position, when he assigned it to James King on January 5, 2005.

Claim #6 -- Defendants denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Manager position, which was assigned to Douglas Garbini on January 11, 2005.

Claim #7 -- Defendants Jebsen, Wilson, and Crock harassed for Plaintiff by requiring him to become a small purchase credit card buyer for other employees.

Claim #8 -- Defendants Jebsen, Wilson, and Crock harassed Plaintiff by delaying the approval for the publication of an article that Plaintiff co-authored.

Claim #9 -- On January 18, 2005, Defendants Jebsen and David Caron denied Plaintiff a fair EEO process when he was required to travel when he was scheduled to take the deposition of a witness for his EEO complaint.

Claim #10 -- Defendants Jebsen and Carron denied Plaintiff a fair EEO process and harassed him by requiring him to conduct an inventory on December 29, 2005.

Claim #11 -- Mr. Jebsen denied Plaintiff a temporary Program Manager position, which was assigned to Andrew Smith on February 26, 2005.

Claim #12 -- Mr. Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Engineer position, which was assigned to Marion Pope on March 24, 2005.

Claim #13 -- Mr. Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position, which was assigned to Robert Wingo on March 24, 2005. Claim #14 -- Mr. Jebsen denied Plaintiff a Program Manager position, which was assigned to Joseph Krycia on March 29, 2005.

Based on these claims, Plaintiff asserts fourteen counts:

Count I -- Violation of Title VII (National Origin)

Count II -- Violation of Title VII (Reprisal)

Count III -- Violation of the ADEA Count IV -- Violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 Count V -- Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights Count VI -- Aiding and Abetting Violations of Civil Rights Laws Count VII -- Obstruction of Official Process Count VIII -- Abuse of Administrative Power Count IX -- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Count X -- Fraud and Misrepresentation Count XI -- Obstruction of Justice by Defendant David Carron (Implied Private Right of Action)

Count XII -- Malicious Abuse of Process Count XIII -- Violation of Plaintiff's constitutional Rights Under the First Amendment Count XIV -- Violation of Plaintiff's Procedural and Substantive Due Process Rights The Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, and other various ...


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.