Bishop v. Sessions et al

Filing 60

MINUTE ORDER denying in part and deferring in part defendant's 58 MOTION for Reconsideration; directing plaintiff to file a response concerning the subjects raised in Section C of defendant's motion for reconsideration, on or before noon on 10/9/2019, any reply shall be filed by noon on 10/11/2019; RENOTING deferred portion of defendant's 58 Motion for Reconsideration : Noting Date 10/11/2019. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

CHERYL BISHOP,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

C18-599 TSZ

WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives,

12

MINUTE ORDER

Defendant.

13

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
14 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(1)
Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, docket no. 58, is DENIED in part
and DEFERRED in part, as follows:
(a)
With regard to whether the decision-maker who is alleged to have
retaliated against plaintiff knew about plaintiff’s protected activity, the motion is
DENIED. As the non-moving party, plaintiff was entitled to have the Court draw
in her favor all “justifiable” inferences from the evidence. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Plaintiff has presented evidence that,
shortly after she engaged in protected activity, the decision-maker substantially
altered the terms of a proposed extended temporary duty assignment for plaintiff,
and that individuals who reported directly to the decision-maker knew about
plaintiff’s protected activity. This evidence gives rise to a reasonable inference
that the decision-maker was aware of the protected activity despite his denial of
such knowledge. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that defendant had met its
burden in moving for summary judgment of establishing the requisite absence of a
genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

(b)
As to whether plaintiff could have advanced to G/S 14 during the
extended temporary duty assignment at issue without engaging in a competitive
promotion process, the motion is DENIED. Defendant devoted only a footnote to
this topic in his motion, and he did not specifically request summary judgment on
this issue. See Def.’s Mot. at 6 n.1 (docket no. 32). Thus, defendant fails to show
any error in the Court’s prior ruling. Moreover, contrary to defendant’s assertion,
the Memorandum of Understanding between plaintiff and the Office of Science
and Technology does not describe a promotion during the extended temporary
duty assignment, but rather a “return full-time to [plaintiff’s] position as a G/S 14
Special Agent in the Seattle Group IV-Intelligence Office, Seattle Division” after
completion of the extended temporary duty assignment. See Ex. 27 to Wing Decl.
(docket no. 43-4 at 56). Defendant does not explain how an alleged typographical
error concerning plaintiff’s then-applicable pay grade would support summary
judgment.

8
9
10
11
12

(c)
With respect to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the
motion is DEFERRED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a response, not to exceed
ten (10) pages in length, concerning the subjects raised in Section C of defendant’s
motion for reconsideration, on or before noon on October 9, 2019. Any reply, not
to exceed five (5) pages in length, shall be filed by noon on October 11, 2019.
The deferred portion of defendant’s motion for reconsideration, docket no. 58, is
RENOTED to October 11, 2019.

(2)
13 record.
14

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 1st day of October, 2019.

15

William M. McCool
Clerk

16
s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2