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.

WILLIAMS v. MCCAUSLAND

April 27, 1992

MILES V. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, against LT. GENERAL CHARLES McCAUSLAND, JUNE GIBBS BROWN, WILLIAM STOKES, EDWARD BRIDGES, KENNETH H. ABRAMS, COLONEL ROSS M. DEMPSEY, JR., USA, BRIG. GENERAL JOHN M. THOMSON, Defendants. MILES V. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, - against - LT. GENERAL CHARLES McCAUSLAND, JUNE GIBBS BROWN, STEPHEN A. WHITLOCK, MARY F. WIESEMAN, WILLIAM E. REUKAUF, CONSTANCE BERRY NEWMAN, RICHARD D. KOMER, SEAN P. WALSH, MICHAEL W. CRUM, DANIEL R. LEVINSON, LAWRENCE BAUM, EDWARD BRIDGES, KENNETH H. ABRAMS, COLONEL ROSS M. DEMPSEY, JR., USA, BRIG. GENERAL JOHN M. THOMSON, Defendants.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT W. SWEET

 Sweet, D. J.

 Plaintiff pro se Miles Williams ("Williams") has brought these actions against numerous defendants, described in further detail herein, seeking injunctive and monetary relief for alleged deprivations of his Fifth Amendment right to due process and for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000e-16(c); the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.; the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a et seq., and various privacy regulations applicable to the Defense Logistics Agency contained in Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("C.F.R."); the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 3 § 1 et seq. and 5 C.F.R. § 1209.4(b)(2); the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552; the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and the Whistleblower Protection Act.

 The defendants in Williams v. McCausland, No. 90 Civ. 7563 (RWS) ("Williams II " and the "Williams II Defendants") have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. as to all of the claims against them except the Title VII claims against defendant Lt. General Charles McCausland. *fn1" The defendants in Williams v. McCausland, No. 91 Civ. 7281 (RWS) ("Williams III " and the "Williams III Defendants") have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. to dismiss all claims against them except for the Title VII claims against Lt. General Charles McCausland. For the following reasons, the motions in both cases are granted in part and denied in part.

 The Parties

 Plaintiff pro se Miles Williams ("Williams") is a black male who at all times relevant to these actions was a resident of New York City, New York. Williams formerly was employed by the Defense Contract Administrative Services Region -- New York ("DCASR-NY"), a subdivision of the Defense Logistics Agency ("DLA") which provides support services for the Department of Defense ("DOD"). At the time of the events at issue in Williams II and Williams III, Williams was a GS-11 Contract Price/Cost Analyst in the Financial Services Branch of the Defense Contract Administration Management Area -- New York ("DCASMA-NY"), a subdivision of DCASR-NY.

 The Williams II Defendants consist of the following individuals:

 Lieutenant General Charles McCausland ("General McCausland") is the Director of the DLA. June Gibbs Brown ("Brown") is the Inspector General of the DOD. William Stokes ("Stokes") was Acting Chief of the Financial Services Branch, DCASMA--NY and Williams's immediate supervisor at the time of the events alleged in the Complaint in Williams II. Edward Bridges ("Bridges") was the Chief of the Contract Management Division of the DCASMA--NY. Kenneth H. Abrams ("Abrams") was the Deputy Commander of DCASMA--NY at the time of the events alleged in the complaint in Williams II. Colonel Ross Dempsey ("Dempsey") was the Commander of DCASMA--NY. Brigadier General John M. Thomson ("Thomson") was the Commander of DCASR--NY at the time of the events alleged in the complaint.

 The Williams III Defendants consist of the following individuals:

 Prior Proceedings

 On June 6, 1989 Williams filed an action in this court charging that General McCausland had violated Title VII when Williams was denied a promotion to a GS-12 Contract Price/Cost Analyst position at the DLA, allegedly because of his race. See No. 89 Civ. 3924 (RWS) ("Williams I"). On February 3, 1992, following a bench trial, this court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Williams had failed to establish that he was denied the promotion because of his race. 782 F. Supp. 272 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

 The complaint in Williams II was filed on November 26, 1990. On March 8, 1991, the Williams II Defendants filed an answer. The present motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on December 10, 1991 and was considered fully submitted as of January 24, 1992.

 The complaint in Williams III was filed on October 28, 1991. The Williams III Defendants have not yet filed an answer. The present motion to dismiss was filed on January 16, 1992. Like the motion in Williams II, the motion was considered fully submitted as of January 24, 1992.

 The Facts

 Williams II

 The gravamen of the complaint in Williams II is that Williams was wrongfully suspended from his position at the DCASMA-NY as a result of racial discrimination and reprisal for filing previous complaints and "whistleblowing." According to the complaint in Williams II and the exhibits annexed thereto, on August 11, 1989, Williams was issued a "Notice of Proposed Suspension," written by Bridges, advising him that it was proposed to suspend him from duty and pay for ten days for "Insubordination and Use of Abusive or Offensive Language." Williams II Complaint Ex. 2 (hereinafter "Comp. II"). According to this letter, on July 27, 1989, Williams had refused an assignment from Stokes, then his supervisor, and had used abusive or offensive language toward Stokes from July 27 to July 31, 1989. Williams was advised of his right to reply to Abrams within fourteen days after receipt of the Proposed Suspension. Id. Williams responded by letter dated August 11, 1989. Id. Ex. 3. On September 7, 1989, Abrams, then Deputy Commander of DCASMA-NY, notified Williams that a decision had been made to suspend him for ten days effective September 11, 1989. Id. Ex. 5.

 The complaint in Williams II alleges that the suspension was not due to the reasons stated but rather was the result of racial discrimination and reprisal for (1) filing a previous EEO complaint culminating in the district court action in Williams I, (2) for filing an MSPB complaint on behalf of a co-worker on July 27, 1989 alleging racial discrimination and prohibited personnel practices, and (3) for writing letters on July 31, 1989 and August 11, 1989 "blowing the whistle" on Bridges and Stokes, Comp. I Exs. 1 and 3.

 Based on these contentions, after being advised of the suspension, Williams filed a preliminary complaint with the DLA Director of Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Id. Ex. 6. On October 2, 1989, Williams filed a formal complaint alleging racial discrimination and reprisal for filing a previous complaint, with the DLA's Director of EEO. Id. Ex. 8. On October 6, 1989, Williams sought relief from the Office of Special Counsel ("OSC"), which he followed up by letters dated October 11 and 21, 1989. Id. Exs. 9-11. Although the complaint is rather confusing as ...


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.