A U.S. District Court for Maryland judge has ruled that a discrimination suit against the Navy by a former photographer at Patuxent River Naval Air Station can proceed to trial. The suit was filed by Gregory Davis, who was terminated on June 28, 2012 from his job as a senior scientific/technical photographer assigned to VX 23. Davis, 42, currently works as a photographer at Dover Air Force Base, DE
The suit was filed on Davis’ behalf by attorney Morris Fischer of Silver Spring on January 17 of this year. It alleged in its three counts: age and sex discrimination, and firing as retaliation for the filing of an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Greenbelt ruled in the Navy’s favor to dismiss the first two counts because “Davis fails to state a plausible claim for age and sex discrimination,” according to the opinion. But the judge allowed the count alleging retaliation to continue to be litigated.
The judge dismissed the first two counts without prejudice and gave Fischer 10 days to file amended complaints on those counts. Fischer says he intends to meet the courts deadline to file the amendments.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is listed as the defendant in the case. Lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland are representing the Navy in the case.
Davis, when he was hired at Pax River on October 11, 2011, had 23 years of aerial photography experience, including eight as a U.S. Air Force Combat Photographer. His primary role, according to court documents, “was to produce high resolution images of the aircraft and weapons systems during tests.”
Davis’ supervisor was the Technical Director of VX 23 Gerald Garay. The suit alleges that Garay began almost immediately to show preference in assignments to two part-time female contractor employees who were supposed to be under the supervision of Davis.
The suit further alleges that the work of the two female employees was inferior and work habits undependable. Davis alleges that the preferential treatment and assignments led to Davis not being able to meet the flight requirements of the job.
Davis also alleges in the suit that he was disparaged in emails from Garay to other employees.
The Navy alleged in its pleadings in the case that there could be no comparison as to age and sex discrimination between the two female employees and Davis because they worked for a contractor and he did not. But the judge noted that all three were being supervised by Garay and given assignments by him. The judge left open the possibility in further pleadings for attorney Fischer to address that issue more thoroughly.
In allowing the case regarding retaliation to continue the judge noted that 43 days had elapsed from the time the EEO complaint was filed and Davis’ firing. But Judge Chaung ruled “this Court routinely found that duration of time similar to the one here appropriately established a causal link between the adverse action and the protected activity.”
The judge concluded that Davis “alleged a plausible claim for retaliation” and denied the Navy’s motion to dismiss that count.
Davis, in a statement to the Bay Net, said, “My case info combined with all the prior IG (Inspector General) complaints, discrimination against veterans and other shady dealings just for this position…it would appear there’s a long track record of wrong-doing. Just my opinion though!”
Davis is seeking a one-million-dollar judgement on each count.