UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________________________________________ BILL IE SO RRELL, P laintif f,
v. 1:07-CV -854 (F JS/JMF ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendan t.

_______________________________________________ AP P EARANCES OF COUNSEL ALAN BANOV & A SSO CIATES ALAN BANOV, ESQ. 1100 Way ne Ave nue, Suite 900 Silver Spring, Ma

ryland 20910-5645 Attorney s for Plaintiff OF F ICE OF THE ATTORNEY ALEX KARP INSKI, ESQ. GENERAL F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 4th Street, N.W., 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 Attorney s for De fenda

nt SCULLIN, S enior Judge ORDER Currently befor e the Court ar e De fenda nt's motion for summar

y judgme nt, seeDkt. No. 49, and Plaintiff' s motion for partial summary judgme nt, seeDkt. No. 52. Plaintiff has worke d for the D istrict of Columbia Depar tment of Correc tions ("the Ag ency ") since 1983. I

n 1989 or 1990, the Ag ency promoted her

to the rank of

Serg eant. Be tween 1999 a

nd 2006, Plaintiff ge nera lly worke d the midnight shift, which is fr om 11:30 p.m. to 8 a.m., at the D.C. Jail.One of Plaintiff's c o-worke rs was Ser g eant Eug enia Ha ines. Fr om around the e arly 2000s until J anuar

y 2005, Plaintiff and Serg eant Ha ines sporadic ally worke d at the D.C. Jail t og ether
. In J anuar y 2005, the Ag ency

assigned both of them to work the same shift with the same da y s off. B etwee n J une 2003 and June 2006, Serg eants on the midnight shift were rotated through the ActingL ieutenant position. Plainti ff a lleg es that, whe n she ser ved as A ctingL ieutenant, she had supervisory

authority over Ser g eant Ha ines when the y worke d in the same zone and that, likewise, whe n Serg eant Ha ines serve d as Ac ting L ieutenant, she had super visory authority over Plaintiff when they

worke d in the same zone Plaintiff alleg es that Serg eant Ha ines sexually hara ssed her

from June 2003 through Ma y 2005. Fr om approxim ately May 10, 2005, to April 8, 2006, Serg eant Ha ines was a bsent from work due to a work- related injury . Plaintiff asserts that, whe n Serg eant Ha ines retur ned to work in April 2006, she once ag ain beg an to har ass Plaintiff and continued to do so until May 22, 2006, when Plaintiff took medica l leave at the rec ommendation of her psychiatrist. Since June 1, 2006, Plaintiff has bee n on approve d leave without pay from her employ ment at the D.C. Jail. Summary judgme nt is appropriate when ther e is " no g enuine disputes as to a ny materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law." Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(a) . A g enuine issue of material fac t exi sts if "a rea sonable jury

could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). " Credibility deter minations, the weighing of

the evidenc e, and the draw ing of leg itimate infere nces f

rom the fa cts are jury functions, not those of a judg e." Id. at 255. When fac ed with a summary judgme nt motion, t he court must reme mber that " summary judgme nt is a drastic re medy , [and theref ore] courts should g rant it with caution so that no per son will be deprived of his or her da

y in court to prove a
-2-disputed material f actua l issue." Gree nberg v. Food & Drug Admin. , 803 F.2d 1213, 1216 ( D.C. Cir. 1986). Thus, summary judgme nt is not appropriate where "the evidenc e pre sented on a dispositi ve issue is subject to conf licting inter

pretations, or rea sonable pe rsons might diff er a s to its significa

nce . . . ." Id. (citations omitted). Fur thermore , when r eviewingthe evidenc e, the court must draw"a ll inferenc es . . . in favor of the nonmovingparty [.] " Coward v. ADT Sec. Sys., Inc

. , 194 F.3d 155, 158 ( D.C. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Havingrevie wed the pa

rties' submissi ons in light of these well-e stablished principles, the Court concludes that ge nuine issues of material fac t exi st with respec t to a number of dispositive issues, including the following : (1) whe ther Serg eant Ha ines' sexual harassment of Plaintiff wa s sufficie ntly

sever e or pe rvasive to r ise to the level of a hostile work environme nt; (2) whethe r the actions that De fenda

nt took in response to Plaintiff' s complaints of sexual harassment we re appropriate under

the circ umstances; (3) whether Serg eant Ha ines, when se rvingas Ac ting L ieutenant, ha d supervisory authority over Plaintiff whe n they

worke d in the same zone; and (4) whether Plaintiff unrea sonably

failed to take advanta g e of a ny preve ntive or cor

rec tive opportunities that Defe ndant made a vailable to her

or to avoid har

m otherwise. Acc ording ly , the Court here by ORDERS that Def

endant' s motion for summary judgme nt is DENIED ; and the Court further

-3-ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for pa rtial summary

judgme nt is DENIED
. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May

24, 2013 Sy rac use, Ne w York

-4-