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.

Stoyanov v. Mabus

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 26, 2015

YURI J. STOYANOV
v.
RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, et al

Page 532

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 533

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 534

          Yuri J. Stoyanov, Plaintiff, Pro se, Fulton, MD.

         For Ray Mabus, Defendant: John Walter Sippel, Jr, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD.

Page 535

         MEMORANDUM OPINION

         DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, United States District Judge.

         Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination case are several motions: a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by Defendants Ray Mabus, et al. (ECF No. 25); two motions to compel filed by Plaintiff Yuri J. Stoyanov (ECF Nos. 29 and 30); a motion to sequester a witness filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 31); and a motion to disqualify counsel filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 32). The relevant issues have been fully briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motions will be denied.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on July 25, 2007, by filing a complaint against Donald Winter, who was at that time Secretary of the Navy, and eleven other Defendants.[1] This case is one of more than a dozen suits filed by Plaintiff and his twin brother, Aleksandr, against many of the same Defendants.[2] 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 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, inter alia, denied promotions and restrictions placed on the brothers' ability to pursue claims they were bringing before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC" ). In each 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has upheld those decisions.[3]

Page 536

          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. Accordingly, this case was placed on the inactive-unassigned docket on August 7, 2007. (ECF No. 2). Upon Plaintiff's motion, the case was reactivated and reassigned to the active docket on December 23, 2013. (ECF No. 11).

         Here, Plaintiff alleges many of the same acts of discrimination and retaliation as he presented in his previous suits, namely 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, 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 other 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). Plaintiff's current claims span the time period of August 2005 to October 2005. His allegations involve thirteen different incidents, which Plaintiff identifies as thirteen claims. For clarity, these will be called " Incidents." A summary of the Incidents will be provided here:

Incident #1 -- Defendant Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to Aisha Jenkins on September 6, 2005.
Incident #2 -- Defendants Bruce Crock and Gary Jebsen gave Plaintiff a Notice of Proposed Suspension on September 7, 2005.
Incident #3 -- Defendant Charles Behrle authorized the Notice of Proposed Suspension.
Incident #4 -- Defendant Archer Macy denied Plaintiff's request on September 9, 2005 to rescind the Notice of Proposed Suspension.
Incident #5 -- Defendants Bruce crock and Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff's request on September 14, 2005 for official time to respond to the Notice of Proposed Suspension.
Incident #6 -- Defendants Bruce Crock and Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff's request on October 5, 2005 for official time to discuss a new EEO discrimination complaint with EEO Counselor Mr. R. Metler.
Incident #7 -- Plaintiff learned on August 29, 2005 that Defendant Gary Jebsen had changed Plaintiff's bargaining unit status code from 8888 (managerial, supervisory) to 7777 (non-managerial, non-supervisory, general schedule).
Incident #8 -- Plaintiff learned on September 23, 2005 that Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to Michael Monkevich.
Incident #9 -- Plaintiff learned on September 23, 2005 that Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to John Wojno.
Incident #10 -- Plaintiff learned on September 23, 2005 that Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager

Page 537

position that was assigned to Drew Meyer.
Incident #11 -- Plaintiff learned on September 23, 2005 that Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to Michael Schildt.
Incident #12 -- Plaintiff learned on September 23, 2005 that Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to Robert Green.
Incident #13 -- Plaintiff learned on September 23, 2005 that Gary Jebsen denied Plaintiff an ND-5 Program Manager position that was assigned to Joseph Hollman.

(ECF No. 1, at 22-24). Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts fourteen counts against the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, and the various other Defendants who are supervisors and individuals affiliated with NSWCCD:

Count I -- Violation of Title VII (National Origin)
Count II -- Violation of Title VII (Retaliation)
Count III -- Violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (" 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 Misrepresentations
Count XI -- Obstruction of Justice by Defendant David Caron
Count XII -- Malicious Abuse of Process
Count XIII -- Violation of Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights Under the First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Count XIV -- Violation of Plaintiff's Procedural and Substantive Due Process Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(ECF No. 1, at 29-44).

         Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on October 28, 2014. (ECF No. 25). On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff submitted: two motions to compel (ECF Nos. 29 and 30); a motion to sequester a witness (ECF No. 31); and a motion to disqualify Defendants' counsel, John Sippel (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion to dismiss on February 12, 2015. (ECF No. 36).

         II. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment

         A. Standards of Review

         Defendants' motion is styled as a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Defendants' arguments for dismissal of Plaintiff's ...


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.