Ahern v. Shinseki
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25368
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs Eileen Ahern, Debra Auger, Maureen Mastalerz, and Lynda Parker are female radiology technologists at a VA medical center in Providence, RI.
- Khatib, the DIS administrative officer, restructured staffing by adding contract technologists (mostly male) and altering CT scheduling; the plaintiffs reported stress and hostility.
- A DVA review in 2004 found no discriminatory practices but acknowledged a hostile management style; CT department scheduling changes were not adopted.
- Plaintiffs alleged gender-based discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge after the scheduling and supervisory changes, leading to resignation or departure from the VA.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding no adverse actions or similarly situated comparators; plaintiffs appealed.
- Court reviews summary judgment de novo and accepts in plaintiffs’ favor all reasonable inferences not contradicted by record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Ahern et al. establish a prima facie case of discriminatory hiring? | Ahern argues a pro-male hiring pattern shows discrimination. | Shinseki contends plaintiffs failed to show they sought or were qualified for open positions or that similarly situated males were hired. | No prima facie case; plaintiffs did not apply for open positions during Khatib's tenure. |
| Whether plaintiffs established retaliation under Title VII. | Complaints about Khatib's stewardship caused adverse actions; proximity implied causality. | Actions were not materially adverse; temporal proximity was insufficient to show causality. | Summary judgment affirmed; no adverse actions or causal link established. |
| Whether plaintiffs suffered a constructive discharge due to discriminatory conduct. | Work environment and stress coerced resignation. | Disagreeable conditions alone do not equal constructive discharge; no gender-based basis shown. | Waived argument; even on merits, evidence did not show gender-based discrimination that forced resignation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc., 361 F.3d 62 (1st Cir.2004) (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment and pretext)
- Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (prima facie case and pretext framework in discrimination)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (standard for determining causation and focus on discrimination context)
- BurlingtonN. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (definition of actionable adverse action in retaliation cases)
- Morón-Barradas v. Dep't of Educ., 488 F.3d 472 (1st Cir.2007) (prima facie case framework and proof standards in discrimination)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.2005) (retaliation standard; causal link and temporal proximity considerations)
- Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 605 F.3d 27 (1st Cir.2010) (adverse action standard and context in Title VII retaliation)
- U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (direct evidence not required; burden-shifting framework)