United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
ADRIENNE L. MCADORY, Plaintiff,
VAIL TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant.
M. Brinkema United States District Judge.
pro se Adrienne L. McAdory ("plaintiff' or
"McAdory") has filed a complaint alleging that she
was the victim of pregnancy discriminationin violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title
VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,
inflicted by the defendant VAIL Technologies
("defendant" or "VAIL"), whom she claims
was a joint employer. She seeks over $8, 000, 000.00 in
damages. Before the Court is the defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, in which it argues that VAIL was not
plaintiffs employer for Title VII purposes; that plaintiff
has failed to establish a prima facie case of
pregnancy discrimination and has failed to show that
VAIL's legitimate reasons for refusing to renew the
contract with her company were pretextual; and that plaintiff
cannot prove that she suffered any damages from VAIL's
conduct. For the reasons that follow, defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment will be granted.
founded ALM Group, Inc. ("ALM Group") in 2004, Def.
SUMF, [Dkt. 66] at ¶ 1, and has remained its
President, Chief Executive Officer, and sole employee to the
present. Def. Ex. 1, [Dkt. 66-1] at 26:25-27:9. Since 2004,
ALM Group has entered into at least 11 subcontracts with
various entities to provide consulting services. Def. SUMF
¶ 77. VAIL is a small firm with its principal place of
business in Arlington, Virginia, engaged in "providing
business systems architecture, systems engineering, software
development, and acquisition management services to the
[U.S.] Government and other clients." Id. at
2012, VAIL and ALM Group worked together on a proposal for a
government contract, under which VAIL would have been the
prime contractor and ALM Group would have been a
subcontractor; however, they were not selected. Def. SUMF
¶ 3. VAIL and McAdory had no further interaction until
January 25, 2013, VAIL was awarded "Contract D0029"
"to perform specialized analysis and business systems
architecture support for the United States Army Office of
Business Transformation" ("OBT"). Def. SUMF
¶ 4. Contract D0029 is an umbrella contract-also known
as an indefinite duration, indefinite quantity
("IDIQ") contract-under which the government issues
discrete work orders. Each of these work orders is
essentially a separate contract. One of those work orders was
"Contract D0029-202." Id. at ¶ 10.
Although neither party has submitted Contract D0029-202, both
have referred to a document entitled "Performance Work
Statement for Business Systems Architecture Additional Work
Effort" ("PWS") prepared by OBT on May 21,
2014, to define the scope of the project. See Def.
Ex. 9, [Dkt. 66-9]; PL Ex. 1, [Dkt. 76-1] at 17.
states that the objective of the project was to focus on
"rationalizing and integrating the Army's business
system portfolio." Def. Ex. 9, [Dkt. 66-9] at 5. To that
end, the project required
technical expertise to support Government efforts in the
following general areas of the Army's Business
Architecture: strategic planning, business alignment, IT
requirements and acquisition reform efforts; Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP), software implementation and
convergence planning; business architecture development,
[end-to-end] business process modeling and improvement and
business investment governance; technical services to
evaluate emerging technologies that could accelerate business
transformation; liaison support with Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) Staff, Military Services and Army Commands;
and executing transformation initiatives and activities
implementing business changes that will occur.
Id. at 4-5.
27, 2014, VAIL and ALM Group entered into a
"Sub-Contract Agreement & VAIL Work Order"
("Subcontract") under which ALM Group was hired to
"perform as a member of VAIL's team providing
Enterprise Architecture consulting support to" the OBT.
Def. Ex. 8, [Dkt. 66-8] at 1. The Subcontract provided that
McAdory would be "deemed key personnel and [would]
perform all support from ALM [Group], and [could] only be
replaced with personnel that meet qualification requirements
of the position and are approved by VAIL." Id.
The Subcontract included a paragraph titled "ALM's
Relationship to VAIL, " which stated:
ALM's relationship to VAIL is that of a sub contractor.
Payments to ALM will be reported to the Internal Revenue
Service through ALM's EIN. VAIL will provide ALM a 1099
tax form at the end of VAIL's tax year. ALM shall be
responsible exclusively for all reports and obligations
relating to tax withholding and similar matters.
Id. The Subcontract covered "a period of
performance from May 28, 2014 through May 27, 2015, "
which was the same time period that VAIL would be performing
on the D0029-202 work order. Id; Def. SUMF ¶
10. Both the work order and Subcontract were ultimately
extended by six days, through June 2, 2015. Def. SUMF ¶
11. ALM Group's billing under the Subcontract was on a
"time and materiel basis" at an hourly rate of
$100.00, capped at 1920 hours, or $192, 000.00. Def. Ex. 8,
[Dkt. 66-8] at 1.
with ALM Group, four full-time VAIL employees were assigned
to work on Contract D0029-202. Def. SUMF ¶ 16; PI. SUMF
¶ 16. It is undisputed that "VAIL contracted with
ALM Group because [McAdory] had a college degree, an active
[secret] clearance, a Project Management Professional
('PMP') certification, and years of experience and
expertise working with the OBT and its predecessors."
Def. SUMF ¶ 18; PL SUMF ¶ 18. By contrast, none of
the four VAIL employees had experience working with OBT or
its sphere of operations. Id.
performed her work under the Subcontract at the
government's Polk Building and the Pentagon, and never
reported for duty at VAIL's premises. Def. SUMF ¶
27; PL SUMF ¶ 27. Her hours were set by the government,
not by VAIL. Def. SUMF ¶ 40; PL SUMF ¶ 40. Although
plaintiff has alleged that she had to request leave from a
VAIL supervisor, at her deposition she admitted that she had
no evidence to support that allegation beyond four emails
that simply show her notifying the VAIL employee in question
that she would be out of the office. Def. Ex. 1, [Dkt. 66-1]
at 128:11-132:3. Those emails do not purport to request
leave, and there is no evidence in the record that anyone
from VAIL either approved or denied the leave referenced in
the emails. Id.
accordance with the terms of the Subcontract, VAIL provided
ALM Group with a 1099 tax form, and did not provide plaintiff
with a W-2. Def. SUMF ¶ 43; PL SUMF ¶ 43.
"VAIL did not withhold federal, state, and social
security taxes" for either McAdory or ALM Group.
Id. at¶42. Between 2014 and 2015, VAIL paid ALM
Group a total of $190, 100.00. Id. at ¶¶
43-44. VAIL never provided McAdory with any benefits, as it
did for its W-2 employees, and did not maintain any payroll,
insurance, or tax records for her. Id. at
did provide plaintiff with a laptop and a VAIL email account.
Def. SUMF ¶¶ 34-35. Although two other 1099
subcontractors were not provided with a laptop (and one was
not provided an email account), those subcontractors worked
on a different project that did not have the same technical
requirements. Id. VAIL also "mistakenly"
created business cards for plaintiff because a member of its
administrative staff "had not yet been informed"
that plaintiff was merely a subcontractor. Id. at
¶ 47. Although plaintiff attended the same training
program as the four VAIL employees, VAIL did not pay for her
training as it did for the W-2 employees. See id at
¶ 37; PL SUMF ¶ 37.
working on Contract D0029-202, plaintiff became pregnant. She
first informed VAIL of her pregnancy on May 8, 2015. Def.
SUMF ¶ 63. The next day, she sent an email explaining
that she "had worked out arrangements with her family
and was on a waiting list for a daycare[.]" Id.