United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No.
Y. Pearson United States District Judge.
before the Court is the Complaint of pro se
Plaintiff Chauntel Jackson against the Transportation
Security Administration (“TSA”). ECF No.
1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she was
terminated from her employment with TSA as a result of racial
discrimination. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.
reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.
was hired to work for TSA in March 2013. ECF No. 1-1 at
PageID #: 32 [Sealed]. She was assigned to the position of
Travel Document Checker. Beginning in April 2015, Plaintiff
committed a series of infractions that led to her dismissal.
April 9, 2015, Plaintiff's supervisor asked her to help
locate a toothbrush and lip balm that were placed in the lost
and found on February 5, 2015. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 35.
Plaintiff contends she did not volunteer for this collateral
duty. She indicated she was not sure if she threw the items
away after thirty days or if they were misplaced in the store
room but her supervisor “was on a quest to find out
what happened to this toothbrush and lip balm.”
Id. She states she and others with access to the
store room were asked to write a statement concerning these
two items. Plaintiff then composed a letter to her supervisor
resigning from collateral duties. Id.
April 10, 2015, Plaintiff allowed a female passenger to enter
the security checkpoint area without a valid boarding pass in
her own name. Id. at PageID #: 33. The passenger
presented her husband's boarding pass to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not adequately check the name on the boarding
pass with the name on the identification and allowed her to
pass through. The passenger's husband then arrived at the
checkpoint a few minutes later and informed Plaintiff that
his wife possessed his boarding pass and he had hers.
Plaintiff initially told her superiors that she had
discovered the error but her superiors later learned that the
husband had alerted her to the mistake. The supervisor issued
a Letter of Guidance and Direction to Plaintiff, explaining
that the letter was not a disciplinary action and would not
be placed in her personnel file. Id. at PageID #:
33, 76. Instead, he would keep a copy of the letter for five
years in the event that it was needed for later disciplinary
actions to show that she had been notified of the violation.
He also cautioned her against a lack of candor, particularly
in security situations. Id. at PageID #: 77.
incident occurred on June 15, 2015 in which Plaintiff allowed
an individual to pass through the security checkpoint without
properly confirming that the name on the boarding pass
matched the name on the identification. Id. at
PageID #: 31, 38, 76, 78. On this occasion she received a
Letter of Reprimand, informing her that further misconduct
could lead to more severe discipline, including termination
from federal employment. Id. at PageID #: 38.
September 6, 2015, Plaintiff spoke rudely to her supervisor.
She indicates that her supervisor had been treating her
disrespectfully for some time and had been particularly
disrespectful to her in the briefing. She contends no one
else intervened so she confronted the supervisor afterward by
waving her finger and saying, “You know you was wrong
for that briefing you gave.” Id. at PageID#:
74. On October 8, 2015, she received a Letter of Counseling
for this infraction informing her that her behavior was
unacceptable and that she was required to act in a
professional manner and treat others with dignity and
respect. Id. at PageID#: 76.
similar incident occurred with a passenger on October 11,
2015, just three days after receiving the Letter of
Counseling. Plaintiff told a female passenger to “put
her listening ears on.” Id. at PageID#: 74.
The passenger responded that Plaintiff did not need to talk
to her that way and Plaintiff apologized. The passenger
complained to Plaintiff's superiors. Id.
October 22, 2015, Plaintiff allowed a former airport employee
to gain access to a secure area of the airport with a
deactivated employee badge. Id. at PageID #: 37, 71,
78. The badge was placed on the badge reader which indicated
the badge was invalid. Plaintiff did not pay attention to the
indication and admitted the individual to the secure area.
When confronted with the error, Plaintiff said she initially
saw green when she scanned the badge and then turned so she
did not see the negative indication on the reader.
Id. at PageID #: 72. She told her supervisors that
she had not been trained on how to use the scanner and did
not know how it would react if the badge was disabled. Her
supervisor determined she was trained on the scanner in 2013
and cited her lack of candor as well. Id. at PageID
states that she was taken off of her regular checkpoint
duties and assigned to the “exit” for two months.
ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3. She indicates this
assignment made her feel isolated.
the disabled badge incident was Plaintiff's third
security infraction in twelve months, TSA decided to remove
her from her position as a TSA Officer and terminate her
employment with the federal government on January 6, 2016.
ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 71. Plaintiff appealed that decision
to the Homeland Security Appellate Board. She alleges the
Appellate Board reversed her termination and reinstated her
to her employment. ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 2. She
returned to work on April 14, 2016. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2.
She states she resigned on April 20, 2016 because “the
employee-employer relationship had been broken and because
[she] had lost everything [she] owned because of TSA's
actions against [her].” ECF No. 1 at PageID #:
contends TSA treated her differently than it treated a
Caucasian male who had failed to follow standard operating
procedure at a security checkpoint. ECF No. 1 at PageID
#: 3. She indicates Alin Deak had two infractions at the
screening checkpoint. First, on November 8, 2015, he allowed
a passenger to gain access to a flight from Cleveland to Los
Angeles using a boarding pass with an incorrect date. Deak
was removed from his screening duties until he was retrained.
ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #:41-48. Second, on December 4, 2015,
Deak subjected a passenger to a standard screening when
standard operating procedure required a more thorough
security screening to be used. A supervisor noticed the
mistake and screened the passenger more thoroughly before
clearing him to enter the secure area. At the second offense,
Deak expressed remorse for his mistake and presented an
action plan to ensure such a breach would not occur in the
future. Id. at PageID #: 42. He received a Letter of
Reprimand in lieu of a three-day suspension. A Performance
Improvement Plan was implemented for Deak on January 22,
2016. Id. at PageID #: 45. The Plan states that his
performance has been unsatisfactory and he was placed in a
probationary period for ninety days. He was told that it was
expected that he would have no negative performance events
during this ...