United States District Court, D. Maryland
CHARLES G. MANSFIELD
JOHN KERRY, Secretary, U.S. Department of State
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge.
pending and ready for resolution in this employment
discrimination case are the following motions: (1) a motion
to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed
by Defendant John Kerry (“Defendant”), Secretary
of the United States Department of State (the
“Agency”) (ECF No. 8); and (2) a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Charles G.
Mansfield (“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 14). The issues
have been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being
deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following
reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be
granted, and Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment will be denied.
an African American man, is a retired Agency employee who
applied for an Agency Personal Services Contractor, Program
Analyst position (GS-0080-13/13) on the Field Support Branch
(“FSB”), Vacancy Announcement DS-2011-0230, in
2011. (ECF No. 8-2, at 43-46, 53-67). The job announcement
included the four factors upon which the candidates would be
A. Experience applying Federal rules, regulations, and
policies related to procurement and acquisition activities.
B. Experience researching and analyzing data and information
to produce forecast plans and reports.
C. Experience providing quotes, justifications, requisitions
and funding information to vendors pertaining to procurement
D. Knowledge of the Federal budgetary rules, regulations and
process to provide expert advice and guidance.
Nos. 12-4, at DOS-0046; 8-2, at 95, 114). The Agency's
human resources department created a Certificate of Eligibles
from the applications, which included Plaintiff and four
other candidates. (ECF No. 8-2, at 130-31). The Certificate
of Eligibles included the five candidates' scores on
“job-specific self-assessment questions, ”
answered online as part of the application process.
(See ECF Nos. 12-4, at DOS-0047; 8-2, at 130-31,
101-02). Plaintiff had the second-highest self- assessment
score, and Charles Segrist, Jr., a Caucasian man, had the
lowest score. The Certificate of Eligibles was sent to the
selecting official, FSB Branch Chief Tamika Abbott. (ECF No.
8-2, at 91-93). FSB Section Chief Rickey Fergerson assisted
Ms. Abbott in reviewing the candidates' applications, but
did not play a role in making the selection decision for the
Program Analyst position. (Id. at 92, 104). Both Ms.
Abbott and Mr. Fergerson are African American. (Id.
at 91, 104).
Abbott reviewed the application materials and ranked the
eligible candidates based on her determination of the extent
to which each candidate satisfied the four evaluation
factors. (Id. at 93, 95). Ms. Abbott did not
interview any of the candidates. (See Id. at 93; ECF
No. 12-9, at 3). Ms. Abbott ranked Mr. Segrist first and
Plaintiff fourth, and Mr. Segrist was selected for the
Program Analyst position. (ECF No. 8-2, at 93, 95). Plaintiff
was informed that he was not selected for the position on May
3, 2011. (Id. at 44).
9, Plaintiff contacted an Agency Equal Employment Opportunity
(“EEO”) counselor. (Id. at 16). A Notice
of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint was issued to
Plaintiff on August 10. (Id. at 28-29). On August
23, Plaintiff filed a formal EEO complaint with the Agency
Office of Civil Rights. (Id. at 13-15). The Agency
Office of Civil Rights issued a Final Agency Decision
determining that Plaintiff did not establish his claims of
discrimination on July 7, 2013. (See ECF No. 12-8,
at 1). Plaintiff appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and the Office of Federal Operations affirmed on
March 11, 2015. Plaintiff requested reconsideration, which
was denied on September 3, 2015.
December 2, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
filed a complaint asserting racial discrimination for failing
to hire him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (ECF No.
1). On April 1, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss or for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff was provided with a
Roseboro notice (ECF No. 9), which advised him of
the pendency of the motion to dismiss and his entitlement to
respond within seventeen days from the date of the letter.
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310
(4th Cir. 1975) (holding pro se
plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file
responsive material to a motion for summary judgment).
Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 12), filed a separate
“proposed findings of fact” and a “response
to Defendant's proposed finding of fact” (ECF Nos.
13; 15), and moved for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 14).
Defendant replied and opposed Plaintiff's motion in his
reply brief. (ECF No. 16).
Standard of Review
motion is styled as a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, for summary judgment. A court considers only the
pleadings when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Where the
parties present matters outside of the pleadings and the
court considers those matters as it does here, the court will
treat the motion ...