Opinion ID: 1991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Retaliatory AWOL

Text: On the last business day before Pardo-Kronemann's transfer was to take effect, he sought leave from OGC and submitted a copy of the request to OIA. Although an OIA administrator informed Pardo-Kronemann that he needed Sorzano's approval, he never sought it. Instead, he failed to report for work on the following Monday, at which point Sorzano, after consulting with Human Resources, placed him on AWOL status, resulting in a two-day suspension. As one might expect, HUD's proffered non-retaliatory reason for this action is that Pardo-Kronemann was in fact absent without leave. The district court concluded that no reasonable jury could find this explanation pretextual. Although acknowledging that he failed to seek Sorzano's approval for leave, Pardo-Kronemann insists that a reasonable jury could find that HUD marked him AWOL in retaliation for his EEO activity. He claims that Sorzano had no legitimate business reason for placing him on AWOL status because his position description remained unfinished and OIA had no work for him to do. Yet Sorzano explained that she marked Pardo-Kronemann AWOL because as a GS-14 attorney with over 12 years of government experience, he should have known how to apply for leave through the proper channels. Sorzano Aff. ¶ 13. In addition, Sorzano believed that approving his leave under these circumstances would set a bad precedent for other employees. Id. This strikes us as an entirely legitimate business purpose, and Pardo-Kronemann offers nothing to suggest that a reasonable jury could think otherwise. Pardo-Kronemann next argues that a jury could infer retaliation from the fact that John Geraghty, his OIA supervisor, told him that the decision came from the Tenth Floor, where the Office of the Secretary and OGC are located, and that Pardo-Kronemann had some pretty powerful enemies there. Pl.'s Decl. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 10-11. But Pardo-Kronemann never claims that Geraghty had firsthand knowledge of how the AWOL decision was made. Like the district court, we thus agree with HUD that Geraghty's statements reflect[] at most a personal opinion or sympathy, Appellee's Br. 46, insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that HUD's explanation is pretext for retaliation. See Haynes v. Williams, 392 F.3d 478, 485 (D.C.Cir.2004) (The possibility that a jury might speculate in the plaintiff's favor is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.).