Abdelhamid v. Lane Construction Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OSAMA ABDELHAMID, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23 - 2472 (LLA) LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Osama Abdelhamid, proceeding pro se, brings this action against his former employer, Defendant Lane Construction Corporation, alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ECF No. 1.1 Pending before the court are Lane’s motions for summary judgment, ECF No. 37, and for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 42. For the following reasons, the court denies Lane’s motion for summary judgment and grants its motion for attorney’s fees. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted. Lane is a private construction company that specializes in complex civil infrastructure projects. ECF No. 37, at 43; ECF No. 40-1, at 1.2 Mr. Abdelhamid is an Egyptian national who was born in Kuwait. ECF 1 Mr. Abdelhamid also brought a retaliation claim, which the court previously dismissed. ECF No. 12, at 13-19. 2 When citing the parties’ filings and exhibits, the court refers to the CM/ECF-generated numbers at the top of each page rather than any internal pagination. No. 29-23, at 4; ECF No. 37, at 47.3 He has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from an Egyptian university, and he moved to the United States in 2016 to work at a different construction company. ECF No. 29-23, at 6; ECF No. 37, at 48. In July 2021, Lane hired Mr. Abdelhamid as a Contracts Manager for the Northeast Boundary Tunnel (“NEBT”) project, which concerned the District of Columbia’s sewer system. ECF No. 1, at 2; ECF No. 37, at 48. Mr. Abdelhamid was an at-will employee and reported directly to Fabio Ciciotti, the NEBT Project Director, and indirectly to Chad Curran, Lane’s Contracts and Claims Director. ECF No. 29-23, at 8-10; ECF No. 37, at 48-49. Mr. Ciciotti reported to Lane’s Vice President, Daniele Nebbia. ECF No. 37, at 49. In his role as a Contracts Manager, Mr. Abdelhamid was responsible for “helping” Mr. Ciciotti navigate “contractual, . . . commercial, and legal challenges in the project” and “support the construction team.” ECF No. 29-23, at 8. A. First Subcontractor Dispute and Mediation In 2021, Lane became involved in a dispute with two of the NEBT Project’s subcontractors, which claimed Lane owed them additional payments. ECF No. 37, at 49. Lane and the subcontractors agreed to mediate the dispute, and, among others, Mr. Ciciotti, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Abdelhamid, and Lane’s Assistant General Counsel, Allen Wiggins, attended the mediation in October 2021. Id. During the mediation, Mr. Abdelhamid told the mediator that Lane had a stronger legal position than the subcontractors, and he recommended that Lane arbitrate the matter instead of 3 Record materials frequently refer to Mr. Abdelhamid as “Mr. Karam,” which is his family’s surname. See ECF No. 29-23, at 3. 2 settling. Id. at 49-50; see ECF No. 29-23, at 27-28. Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Wiggins stated in their declarations that Mr. Abdelhamid “repeatedly interrupted [the mediator] and argued stridently with him over the merits of the case.” ECF No. 29-1, at 7 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-24, at 2 (Mr. Wiggins).4 Mr. Abdelhamid “showed such a level of disrespect and rudeness toward” the mediator that, at some point, the mediator expressed his preference “to communicate only with” Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Wiggins, even though they were attending the mediation remotely, whereas Mr. Abdelhamid was attending in person. ECF No. 29-1, at 7 (Mr. Nebbia); see ECF No. 37-1, at 9-10 (Mr. Nebbia’s deposition describing Mr. Abdelhamid’s “arguing, taking various positions, and not really respecting even the . . . mediator”). Mr. Abdelhamid did not recall the mediator 4 Mr. Abdelhamid raises an evidentiary objection to Lane’s account of the mediation under Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 802 “to the extent [evidence is] offered for the truth or to prove performance/legitimacy.” ECF No. 40-1, at 1. Federal Rule of Evidence 408 prohibits the admission of “statement[s] made during compromise negotiations” used “to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)(2). But “the court may admit [such] evidence for another purpose.” Id. 408(b). Rule 408 presents no bar here because Lane offers information about its settlement negotiations with the subcontractors to provide examples of Mr. Abdelhamid’s unprofessional behavior, not to prove or disprove the validity of the subcontractors’ claim. Likewise, Federal Rule of Evidence 802, which generally bars the admission of hearsay, does not bar evidence about the mediation because individuals who were present at the mediation, such as Mr. Nebbia, can testify about the events at trial. Because the statements can be “converted into admissible evidence,” the court may consider them at this stage. Richards v. Option One Mortg. Corp., No. 08-CV-7, 2009 WL 2751831, at *1 n.3 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2009) (quoting Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140, 1143 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). In the alternative, Mr. Abdelhamid “disputes [the] characterization and materiality” of the mediation-related facts, ECF No. 40-1, at 1, but he does not articulate any specific objections. For example, Mr. Abdelhamid does not dispute that he repeatedly interrupted the mediator. See generally id. Accordingly, the court “may assume that facts identified by [Lane] in its statement of material facts are admitted” because Mr. Abdelhamid has not controverted those facts in his opposition. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1); see Bastani v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO, 70 F.4th 563 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“To withstand summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify ‘specific facts’ in the record ‘showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986))). 3 becoming “frustrated” with him. ECF No. 29-23, at 28.5 Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Wiggins disagreed with Mr. Abdelhamid’s recommendation at the mediation and decided to settle the matter. ECF No. 29-1, at 7 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-24, at 3 (Mr. Wiggins). Mr. Abdelhamid testified at his deposition that he received positive feedback from Mr. Nebbia after the mediation. ECF No. 29-23, at 28. A few days after the mediation, Lane and the subcontractors entered into a settlement agreement. ECF No. 37, at 51. Mr. Abdelhamid was not involved in negotiating or drafting the settlement agreement. Id.; ECF No. 29-23, at 29. About a week later, Mr. Abdelhamid sent an email to Mr. Ciciotti, with Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Wiggins copied, stating that he believed the settlement agreement would expose Lane to liability under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. ECF No. 29-23, at 29; ECF No. 37, at 51; see ECF No. 29-25, at 2-3. In response, Mr. Wiggins wrote that he appreciated Mr. Abdelhamid’s “taking the time to analyze the recent Settlement Agreement [and] . . . put [his] thoughts together,” but that he disagreed with Mr. Abdelhamid’s assessment because he was “not aware of anything associated with this settlement [] that would constitute or lead to a false claim.” ECF No. 29-26, at 2. B. Second Subcontractor Dispute In December 2021, a different subcontractor sued Lane and related entities for breach of contract in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. ECF No. 37, at 53. Shortly after Lane 5 In his deposition, Mr. Abdelhamid testified that Mr. Nebbia had directed him to speak at the mediation because he had prepared the relevant documents, but that Mr. Nebbia “started interrupting, taking over, listening to the mediator, and just blindly following what [the mediator] was saying.” ECF No. 29-23, at 27-28. Mr. Abdelhamid also stated that the mediator “always trie[d] to interrupt” him. Id. While Mr. Abdelhamid maintains that others in the mediation were interrupting him and each other, he does not dispute Lane’s assertion that he was also interrupting the mediator. See generally ECF No. 40-1. 4 was served, Christopher Ciancanelli, one of Lane’s attorneys, circulated the complaint to other employees and noted that Lane’s deadline to respond was January 27, 2022. Id. at 53-54; see ECF No. 29-27, at 3. Over the next two weeks, Lane employees, including Mr. Abdelhamid, deliberated over how to proceed. See ECF No. 37, at 54-65. On January 18, 2022, Mr. Ciancanelli, Mr. Abdelhamid, and other members of the NEBT Project team met to discuss the suit. Id. at 55; see ECF No. 29-35, at 15. After the meeting, Mr. Abdelhamid sent Mr. Ciancanelli an email conveying the NEBT Project team’s recommendation that Lane file a motion to dismiss the subcontractor’s suit and to compel arbitration. ECF No. 29-23, at 36-37; ECF No. 37, at 55-56; see ECF No. 29-35, at 14. He further advised that Lane should agree to settlement discussions before arbitration only if the subcontractor proposed it first. ECF No. 29-23, at 37; ECF No. 37, at 55-56; see ECF No. 29-35, at 14. Mr. Ciancanelli, after consulting with outside counsel and Mr. Nebbia, sent an email stating that Mr. Nebbia had agreed with the team’s recommendation, with the only adjustment being that Lane would give the subcontractor “some time to make the first move.” ECF No. 29-35, at 13; see ECF No. 29-23, at 37; ECF No. 29-44, at 2-7; ECF No. 29-45, at 2-3; ECF No. 37, at 56-57. Mr. Abdelhamid replied that he and his team agreed with this approach, noting that the “only thing remaining [wa]s to decide” how long Lane would wait for the subcontractor to make a move. ECF No. 29-35, at 12-13; see ECF No. 37, at 57. In response, Mr. Ciancanelli advised that the subcontractor had “no reason or motivation” to move until Lane filed a motion to arbitrate or an answer to the complaint, and that Lane would proceed by moving the dispute to arbitration. ECF No. 29-35, at 11-12; see ECF No. 37, at 57-58. Mr. Abdelhamid replied that Lane’s outside counsel could “proceed as agreed.” ECF No. 29-35, at 11; see ECF No. 37, at 58. 5  On the morning of January 26, 2022, Mr. Ciancanelli sent an email to Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Abdelhamid, and the rest of the NEBT Project team, stating that Lane’s outside counsel had been discussing the prospect of arbitration with opposing counsel and that the parties had agreed to a fourteen-day extension for Lane to respond to the complaint to allow the parties time to resolve the dispute. ECF No. 37, at 58; see ECF No. 29-35, at 9. Mr. Abdelhamid responded that the fourteen-day extension “will not save us anything” and requested that Lane seek arbitration the following day. ECF No. 29-35, at 8-9; see ECF No. 29-23, at 39; ECF No. 37, at 58. Later that day, Mr. Ciancanelli spoke with Mr. Abdelhamid and other NEBT Project team members on the phone. ECF No. 29-23, at 39-41; ECF No. 29-30, at 4-5; ECF No. 37, at 58. Mr. Abdelhamid repeated his recommendation, with which Mr. Ciancanelli disagreed, that Lane move to compel arbitration the following day to exert pressure on the subcontractor to voluntarily dismiss its complaint. ECF No. 29-23, at 40-41; ECF No. 37, at 58-59. Mr. Abdelhamid sent a follow-up email after the call reiterating his views. ECF No. 29-23, at 40; ECF No. 37, at 59; see ECF No. 29-35, at 7. Mr. Ciancanelli then communicated this disagreement to Mr. Nebbia, who had the final say on how to proceed. ECF No. 37, at 59; see ECF No. 29-54, at 3. After consulting with Mr. Ciancanelli and another colleague, Mr. Nebbia agreed with Mr. Ciancanelli’s approach. ECF No. 37, at 59-61; see ECF No. 29-58, at 2. Later that afternoon, Mr. Ciancanelli sent an email to Mr. Abdelhamid and the NEBT Project team updating them that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Nebbia and Lane would “proceed as . . . previously discussed”—meaning that Lane would file a motion to compel arbitration within the extended time period. ECF No. 29-35, at 6; see ECF No. 29-23, at 40; ECF No. 37, at 61. Mr. Ciancanelli wrote that Lane would give the subcontractor a chance to initiate negotiations, but if it did not do so, Lane would “engage with [the subcontractor] prior to [Lane’s] 6 having to do anything more with the arbitration.” ECF No. 29-35, at 6. Twenty-one minutes later, Mr. Abdelhamid replied: Chris [Ciancanelli], We specifically requested for [Lane’s outside counsel] to inform [the subcontractor]’s attorney with our decision today, before filing the motion tomorrow. [Outside counsel] shouldn’t have agreed with them to file a motion for extension without our consent. However, we iterated our decision for the way forward through email twice and through a phone call as well earlier today. Deciding not to go with our decision earlier and waiting until the end of the day made us miss the opportunity for [the subcontractor] to have one day to reconsider their approach and withdraw their case, and we will end up paying $3,000.00 from the Project budget that could’ve been saved. Again, as clarified during our initial call [a] few days ago, as well as today’s call, unless our legal department specifically advises for any weak point(s) in our position that would form a risk, we will not accept to settle with [the subcontractor] by giving them free money without justification. Please do not proceed further with this case in any different direction or timing other than what has been already discussed and agreed. Trust the above is clear. ECF No. 29-35, at 5-6. Mr. Nebbia, who was copied on the email, immediately called Mr. Ciciotti. ECF No. 29-1 at 11-12; ECF No. 37, at 62; see ECF No. 29-35, at 5. Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti “agreed that the tone of Mr. [Abdelhamid]’s email was unacceptable, not productive[,] and not consistent with Lane’s values and culture of teamwork and respect.” ECF No. 29-1 at 11-12 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68 at 4 (Mr. Ciciotti). Mr. Nebbia replied to Mr. Abdelhamid’s email, “Osama – the tone of this email to a colleague is unacceptable[.] I just talked to Fabio [Ciciotti], he will discuss with you.” ECF 7 No. 29-35, at 4-5. Mr. Abdelhamid responded, “With all due respect, the tone of the email is irrelevant as long as what is being discussed is purely work-related matters. I apologize if the email was interpreted in a different way than what was intended, but I do believe that the email does not address anything outside [the subcontractor]’s [l]awsuit.” Id. at 4.6 Mr. Ciciotti met with Mr. Abdelhamid later that day. ECF No. 37, at 63. Mr. Abdelhamid testified in his deposition that Mr. Ciciotti did not find his email “offensive” and it was Mr. Ciancanelli who had “complained” about the tone of the email. ECF No. 29-23, at 46-47. Mr. Ciciotti stated in his declaration that he advised Mr. Abdelhamid at their meeting that the tone of his email to Mr. Ciancanelli was unacceptable and should not have been sent to a colleague on his team. ECF No. 29-68 at 4. Mr. Ciciotti noted that Mr. Abdelhamid “pushed back and was not open or receptive to [his] views and the discussion was unproductive.” Id. Mr. Nebbia then scheduled a meeting for the following day with Suaydy Canales, Lane’s Human Resources (“HR”) Manager, to discuss the email with Mr. Abdelhamid. ECF No. 37, at 63; see ECF No. 29-6, at 2; ECF No. 29-23, at 56. Mr. Nebbia wrote in his email to Ms. Canales that “[d]epending on the outcome of the conversation[,] we may issue a verbal warning.” ECF No. 29-6, at 2. C. Communication Skills Courses The next day, on January 27, 2022, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Ciciotti, and Ms. Canales spoke with Mr. Abdelhamid over the phone. ECF No. 29-23, at 56-57; ECF No. 37, at 65. Mr. Nebbia 6 Later that day, Mr. Ciancanelli sent an email stating that he “appreciate[d] [Mr. Abdelhamid’s] enthusiasm for protecting our interests and wanting to hold the subcontractors responsible,” and that Mr. Abdelhamid should “[p]lease know that we discussed the issues you raised below with [Mr. Nebbia] and proceeded from there.” ECF No. 29-35, at 3. Mr. Abdelhamid responded the next morning, stating that Mr. Ciancanelli had disregarded their earlier conversations, ignored his team’s efforts, and “skipped [the] step” of informing the subcontractor that Lane intended to move for arbitration. Id. at 2-3. 8 emphasized “Lane’s values of teamwork and mutual respect among colleagues” and advised Mr. Abdelhamid that “the tone of his communications were perceived by both an outside observer like [Mr. Nebbia] and other colleagues, including his supervisor, Mr. Ciciotti, and . . . Ms. Canales, to be not acceptable or productive for resolving issues.” ECF No. 29-1, at 14; see ECF No. 37, at 65-66. Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti stated in their declarations that Mr. Abdelhamid “immediately became angry and dismissed the feedback.” ECF No. 29-1, at 14 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68, at 6 (Mr. Ciciotti). Mr. Nebbia advised that Mr. Abdelhamid would benefit by improving his communication skills and self-awareness, and Mr. Nebbia recommended that Mr. Abdelhamid take two online courses to improve his communication skills. ECF No. 29-1, at 14-15. According to Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti, Mr. Abdelhamid objected, stating “repeatedly that there was nothing he needed to consider to improve his job performance.” Id. at 14 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68, at 6 (Mr. Ciciotti). According to Mr. Abdelhamid, Mr. Nebbia advised him to take the communications courses “[b]ecause [Mr. Nebbia] thought that [he] was taking things too seriously.” ECF No. 29-23, at 57. Mr. Nebbia testified in his deposition that the purpose of the meeting was to train Mr. Abdelhamid “to be successful in [his] work,” but Mr. Abdelhamid “show[ed] sign[s] of distress and anger” and refused to “accept[] any feedback.” ECF No. 37-1, at 5. Mr. Nebbia told Mr. Abdelhamid that he would schedule another meeting in two weeks to “close the loop” after Mr. Abdelhamid had completed the communications courses. ECF No. 29-1, at 15; see ECF No. 29-8, at 2-4; ECF No. 29-23, at 57; ECF No. 37, at 66. Mr. Abdelhamid replied via email thanking Mr. Nebbia for “today’s advice” and stating that he was “[l]ooking forward to the next meeting.” ECF No. 29-8, at 2. That same day, Mr. Nebbia also sent an email to Mr. Ciancanelli stating that Mr. Abdelhamid’s communication had been 9 unacceptable, apologizing on Mr. Abdelhamid’s behalf, and notifying Mr. Ciancanelli that he had directed Mr. Abdelhamid to complete courses to improve his communication skills. ECF No. 37, at 67-68; see ECF No. 29-36, at 2. In a separate email thread with other lawyers at Lane, Mr. Wiggins expressed confusion about Mr. Abdelhamid’s emails, asking, “Why is [Mr. Abdelhamid] dictating legal strategy?” ECF No. 29-34, at 2. In late January 2022, Lane completed Mr. Abdelhamid’s 2021 performance review. ECF No. 37, at 68-69; see ECF No. 29-9. Mr. Ciciotti gave Mr. Abdelhamid positive ratings, noting that he “ha[d] exceeded expectations for the position he holds.” ECF No. 29-9, at 2. Mr. Curran, however, noted that Mr. Abdelhamid’s “continued opposition to the settlement process has led to avoidance of interaction thus nullifying any positive outcome that [Mr. Abdelhamid] can contribute to the process.” Id. at 3. Mr. Curran thus “encourage[d]” Mr. Abdelhamid to “[b]e open to opposing viewpoints and always consider the least cost solution when advocating for a business decision path forward.” Id. at 4. D. Performance Improvement Plan and Termination On February 18, 2022, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Ciciotti, and Ms. Canales met with Mr. Abdelhamid to follow up on Mr. Abdelhamid’s online communication skills courses. ECF No. 29-23, at 58; ECF No. 37, at 69-70. According to Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti, Mr. Abdelhamid responded “no” when they asked if he had learned anything from the courses that could apply to his work. ECF No. 29-1, at 16 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68, at 8 (Mr. Ciciotti); see ECF No. 37, at 69. Mr. Nebbia and Ms. Canales advised Mr. Abdelhamid that his attitude at the time and in recent interactions showed that he needed to improve his level of self-awareness and behavior during difficult conversations. ECF No. 29-1, at 16-17; see ECF No. 29-68, at 8; ECF No. 37, at 69-70; see also ECF No. 29-23, at 58 (Mr. Abdelhamid’s deposition testimony that 10 “Mr. Nebbia is telling me that I did something wrong without giving me any kind of reference to why he decided that this is something wrong.”). Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti stated in their declarations that Mr. Abdelhamid again “strenuously disagreed” and became “agitated,” and Mr. Nebbia decided to end the call. ECF No. 29-1, at 17 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68, at 8 (Mr. Ciciotti); see ECF No. 37, at 70. Afterward, Mr. Nebbia sent an email to Mr. Ciciotti, with other Lane personnel copied: As discussed, based on the interactions over the last month, I am very concern with Osama: • level of self-awareness during normal and difficult conversations • limited interest in listening to constructive feedbacks from his manager and others • written communications toward peers or corporate • performance and attitude during negotiation [during the first subcontractor dispute] More in general, I’m concern with Osama[’s] misalignment with some of Lane Company values and culture. ECF No. 29-10, at 2. In the same email, Mr. Nebbia directed Mr. Ciciotti to draft a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) for Mr. Abdelhamid addressing these concerns. Id.; ECF No. 29-23, at 59; ECF No. 37, at 70. Mr. Nebbia also “strongly recommend[ed]” that, in the meantime, Mr. Abdelhamid “avoid . . . [having] any direct contact with D.C. Water,” one of Lane’s customers, and, at a minimum, “limit” his “direct contact with [s]ubcontractors.” ECF No. 29-10, at 2; see ECF No. 29-23, at 59-60; ECF No. 37, at 70-71. Mr. Ciciotti responded that Lane could not afford to change the NEBT Contracts Manager position before finding a replacement. ECF No. 29-68, at 9. Mr. Ciciotti agreed that Mr. Abdelhamid should be placed on a PIP but said that he wanted to gauge Mr. Abdelhamid’s 11 reaction about a PIP first. Id. Mr. Nebbia later advised colleagues over email that it would be “a good idea to be ready for the worst-case scenario, with someone to replace [Mr. Abdelhamid].” ECF No. 29-12, at 2. Mr. Curran subsequently provided Mr. Nebbia with two resumes of candidates for Mr. Abdelhamid’s position. ECF No. 29-13, at 2. Mr. Ciciotti stated in his declaration that he discussed the prospect of a PIP with Mr. Abdelhamid, who “objected that [a PIP] was unnecessary.” ECF No. 29-68, at 10. Mr. Ciciotti “told [Mr. Abdelhamid] that that was the procedure we needed to follow and that everything would be alright after the PIP was in place,” but Mr. Abdelhamid still “disagreed with that course of action.” Id. On February 24, 2022, Mr. Ciciotti and Mr. Nebbia met with Mr. Abdelhamid to present him with the PIP, which was for a thirty-day period. ECF No. 29-23, at 60-61; ECF No. 37, at 72; see ECF No. 29-14, at 2-3; ECF No. 40-2, at 6-7. The PIP identified Mr. Abdelhamid’s “performance concerns” as “[l]evel of self-awareness during normal and difficult conversations,” “[l]evel of understanding of the counterpart during difficult conversations,” “appear[ing] to be not open[] to receive different opinion[s] and suggestions,” and “written communications toward peers or corporate,” including “the specific email sent to [the] legal department.” ECF No. 29-14, at 2-3. The PIP’s objectives were “[i]mprov[ing] the level of self-awareness during difficult conversations,” “[p]osition[ing] yourself in the best way to deliver clearly and productively your message,” “having a decisive but relaxed attitude during conversation,” “be[ing] open to feedback[] and seek[ing] [] continuous improvements,” and “[i]mproving the perception of the consequences that too strong attitudes can have in interpersonal relationships.” Id. The PIP directed Mr. Abdelhamid to prepare a plan identifying areas for improvement and to submit to Mr. Ciciotti a proposed training plan on ways to improve. Id. 12  Mr. Nebbia recalled that, at the February 24 meeting, he advised Mr. Abdelhamid that Lane would cover the cost of any training and that Lane wished to help Mr. Abdelhamid be successful in his work. ECF No. 29-1, at 19; ECF No. 37, at 73; see ECF No. 29-22, at 3 (Mr. Nebbia’s notes from the following day recounting the meeting). Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti stated in their declarations that Mr. Abdelhamid “appeared resistant and dismissive.” ECF No. 29-1, at 19 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68, at 11 (Mr. Ciciotti). Mr. Nebbia then asked Mr. Abdelhamid “if the plan was crazy,” and he responded, “yes.” ECF No. 29-1, at 19 (internal quotation marks omitted); ECF No. 29-68, at 11 (internal quotation marks omitted); see ECF No. 29-22, at 3. Mr. Nebbia stated that he asked Mr. Abdelhamid to focus on their feedback based on more recent interactions, rather than solely his email to Mr. Ciancanelli. ECF No. 29-1, at 19-20; ECF No. 29-68, at 11; see ECF No. 29-22, at 3. Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti recounted that, as Mr. Nebbia explained how recent calls and interactions demonstrated Mr. Abdelhamid’s issues with his self-awareness and communication skills, Mr. Abdelhamid “again strenuously disagreed and became visibly angry.” ECF No. 29-1, at 20 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68, at 11 (Mr. Ciciotti). According to Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti, Mr. Abdelhamid asked what would happen if he refused to sign the PIP, and Mr. Nebbia responded that it would be considered a refusal to follow directions and Lane would take appropriate disciplinary measures, including termination if necessary. ECF No. 29-1, at 20 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-68, at 11 (Mr. Ciciotti); see ECF No. 29-22, at 3 (Mr. Nebbia’s notes). Mr. Abdelhamid responded that he would not accept the PIP, that he would not discuss the PIP further without his attorney and Ms. Canales present, and that the PIP was retaliatory. ECF No. 29-1, at 20 (Mr. Nebbia); ECF No. 29-23, at 61 (Mr. Abdelhamid); ECF No. 29-68, at 11-12 (Mr. Ciciotti); see ECF No. 29-22, at 4. Mr. Nebbia 13 said that Lane did not want him to leave the room and refuse the PIP, but Mr. Abdelhamid continued to move toward the door. ECF No. 29-1, at 20; ECF No. 29-68, at 12; see ECF No. 29-22, at 4. As Mr. Abdelhamid was leaving, Mr. Nebbia asked if he wanted a copy of the PIP, and Mr. Abdelhamid responded “no” and left the meeting. ECF No. 29-1, at 20 (internal quotation marks omitted); ECF No. 29-68, at 12 (internal quotation marks omitted); see ECF No. 29-22, at 4. Mr. Abdelhamid stated in his interrogatory responses that during the meeting, Mr. Nebbia also told him, “Your style doesn’t fit into the company culture here.” ECF No. 29-70, at 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). And in his deposition, Mr. Abdelhamid testified that toward the end of the meeting, Mr. Nebbia “said something along the lines of, I know that you are different and I know that you might think differently, but we all need to follow the American culture of the company.” ECF No. 29-23, at 12. Mr. Abdelhamid responded by asking, “what do you mean I’m different? I’m asking you if I did something that’s not in line with the code of conduct. If not, then it’s perfectly fine.” Id. Then, according to Mr. Abdelhamid, Mr. Nebbia “started to back up a little bit and said, no, no, no, I don’t mean it that way.” Id. Mr. Abdelhamid testified that he felt like he was “being discriminated against,” and he asked to leave the meeting. Id. In his deposition, Mr. Nebbia denied making any statements that Mr. Abdelhamid was “different” or referring to his “culture as far as nation of origin.” ECF No. 37-1, at 8. Mr. Nebbia testified that they “talk[ed] multiple times about the culture of [the] company, in [his] interest [that Mr. Abdelhamid] align with the culture of Lane.” Id. 14  After Mr. Abdelhamid left the meeting, Mr. Ciciotti signed Mr. Abdelhamid’s PIP and wrote, “Employee refused to sign it.” ECF No. 29-14, at 3; see ECF No. 37, at 74. Mr. Nebbia emailed Ms. Canales an update after the meeting, stating: Osama didn’t want to sign and disagreed with the plan. He said that he sees this “as retaliation” and any further correspondence will have to happen through his lawyer and in presence of HR Corporate. Obviously not a good outcome. I’ll call you later to discuss. ECF No. 29-15, at 2. Mr. Nebbia directed Ms. Canales to schedule a meeting for the next day at 3:00 p.m. so that he, Mr. Ciciotti, and Ms. Canales could further discuss the PIP with Mr. Abdelhamid. ECF No. 29-1, at 21; ECF No. 37, at 75. The next morning, on February 25, 2022, Ms. Canales sent an invitation for the 3:00 p.m. meeting later that day. ECF No. 29-23, at 61; ECF No. 37, at 75; see ECF No. 29-18, at 2. Mr. Nebbia also composed an email containing notes about Mr. Abdelhamid’s communications and interactions from January 26, 2022 to February 24, 2022. See ECF No. 29-22 at 2-4. At 11:55 a.m., Mr. Abdelhamid sent Ms. Canales an email explaining that he had been asked to sign a PIP the previous day, which, in his view, was “baseless.” ECF No. 29-18, at 2. He stated that he had “expressed [his] concern” at the meeting with Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti that he was “suffering from an act of Intimidation & Discrimination, while being threatened to face Retaliation in case [he] showed any sign of disagreement.” Id. Mr. Abdelhamid “respectfully decline[d] attending” the 3:00 p.m. meeting because it was too “short notice to have [his] legal representative present.” Id. at 3. About thirty minutes later, Ms. Canales forwarded Mr. Abdelhamid’s email to David Bondanza, Lane’s Assistant General Counsel, as well as 15 Mr. Ciciotti and Mr. Nebbia. Id. at 2; see ECF No. 29-1, at 22. Ms. Canales “propose[d] writing a letter of separation and sending it to [Mr. Abdelhamid], since he refuses to meet with us.” ECF No. 29-18, at 3. Mr. Nebbia “agreed [] and authorized” Ms. Canales to do so, ECF No. 29-1, at 22, and Mr. Bondanza directed Ms. Canales to draft a termination letter, which would be sent overnight, ECF No. 29-18, at 2; ECF No. 29-69, at 3. About an hour after emailing Ms. Canales, Mr. Abdelhamid sent an email to Mr. Curran, with Mr. Wiggins and Lane’s General Counsel copied, with the subject line, “Urgent Discrimination Issue – Action is Needed.” ECF No. 29-19, at 2-4. In the email, Mr. Abdelhamid described recent events relating to the subcontractor’s lawsuit and objected to Mr. Nebbia’s assessment that his email to Mr. Ciancanelli had an unacceptable tone. Id. at 2-3. Mr. Abdelhamid wrote that Mr. Nebbia had decided to “go after [him] for no good reason” and that he believed Mr. Nebbia was trying to “punish [him] for an internal argument” within the legal department. Id. at 3-4. Mr. Abdelhamid also stated that his “legal rights” were “violated” in his meeting with Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Ciciotti the previous day, and he requested Mr. Curran’s “support.” Id. at 4. Lane’s General Counsel forwarded this email to Mr. Bondanza and Mr. Ciancanelli, and Mr. Bondanza replied, “Please do not respond to the individual. I am handling with HR, the employee is being separated today.” ECF No. 29-20, at 2. Later that day, Ms. Canales sent a letter by email and overnight mail to Mr. Abdelhamid terminating his employment with Lane. ECF No. 37, at 78-79; see ECF No. 29-21, at 2-4. The termination letter stated: “Unfortunately, as a result of unprofessional behavior that is substandard to company values and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, coupled with your refusal to attend a meeting today to discuss these concerns, your employment with the Lane Construction Corporation has been terminated effective immediately.” ECF No. 29-21, at 4. 16  II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In May 2022, Mr. Abdelhamid filed a discrimination and retaliation claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). ECF No. 1-2, at 2-3. The EEOC declined to take action on the charge and informed Mr. Abdelhamid of his right to sue in May 2023. Id. at 6. Proceeding pro se, Mr. Abdelhamid filed this suit in August 2023, alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin and retaliation. ECF No. 1 at 3. Lane filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 3, which the court granted in part and denied in part in August 2024, ECF No. 12. The court dismissed Mr. Abdelhamid’s retaliation claim, which invoked both the False Claims Act and Title VII, ECF No. 12, at 13-19, but the court denied Lane’s motion to dismiss the claim of national origin discrimination, id. at 5-13. The parties conducted discovery, and in April and May of 2025, the court referred the case for mediation and ordered the appointment of counsel for Mr. Abdelhamid for the limited purpose of mediation, Apr. 30, 2025 Minute Order; ECF No. 22. Mr. Abdelhamid sought an extension of time to complete discovery, ECF No. 25, and while that motion was pending, Lane filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 29. The parties engaged in mediation in July 2025, but it was unsuccessful. ECF No. 30. In July 2025, the court granted Mr. Abdelhamid’s extension motion in part and briefly reopened discovery. ECF No. 31. Specifically, the court ordered Lane to produce by August 5 the entirety of the NEBT prime contract; two subcontracts on which Mr. Abdelhamid had personally worked; human resources, ethics, and disciplinary policies pertaining to employee behavior and performance; and organizational charts for projects on which Mr. Abdelhamid had worked. Id. at 2. Lane produced the materials, but excluded certain files it believed to be outside the scope of the court’s order. See ECF No. 35, at 4-6; ECF No. 38, at 2. 17  On August 12, Mr. Abdelhamid sent an email to Lane identifying items in the production that “appear[ed] incomplete or require[d] clarification” and stating that he would file a motion to compel if the dispute was not resolved. ECF No. 42-2, at 2-3. Lane responded that it believed its production fully complied with the court’s order opening discovery and that Mr. Abdelhamid had “no legitimate grounds” to file a motion to compel. Id. at 1. On August 18, Mr. Abdelhamid filed a motion to compel Lane to complete the production and “to supply limited ancillary information necessary to make that production reasonably usable.” ECF No. 34, at 1. The court denied Mr. Abdelhamid’s motion. ECF No. 38. On September 30, Lane filed an updated motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 37. The court issued an order advising Mr. Abdelhamid of his obligations under Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), and Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992). ECF No. 39. After the parties completed summary judgment briefing, Lane filed a motion for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in opposing Mr. Abdelhamid’s motion to compel, ECF No. 42, and the court ordered Mr. Abdelhamid to file a response, ECF No. 43. Lane’s motions for summary judgment and for attorney’s fees are fully briefed. ECF Nos. 37, 40 to 42, 44, 45. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[a] party is entitled to summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and judgment in the movant’s favor is proper as a matter of law.” Soundboard Ass’n v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 888 F.3d 1261, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2006)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact” in dispute. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 18 The nonmoving party must present specific facts supported by materials in the record that would be admissible at trial and that could enable a reasonable jury to find in its favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Allen v. Johnson, 795 F.3d 34, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (noting that, at summary judgment, the appropriate inquiry is “whether, on the evidence so viewed, ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party’” (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248)). “[C]ourts may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the party seeking summary judgment,” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (per curiam), and “[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor,” id. at 651 (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255 (alteration in original)). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255); see Burley v. Nat’l Passenger Rail Corp., 801 F.3d 290, 295-96 (D.C. Cir. 2015). For a factual dispute to be “genuine,” the nonmoving party must establish more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of [his] position,” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252, and he cannot rely on “mere allegations” or conclusory statements, Equal Rts. Ctr. v. Post Props., Inc., 633 F.3d 1136, 1141 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Libe