Allard v. Holder
840 F. Supp. 2d 269
D.D.C.2012Background
- Policy: Field Office Supervisory Term Limit set five years for GS-14 SSAs; later extended to seven years.
- All 35 plaintiffs were GS-14 SSAs over 40 when policy announced in 2004; only six (Codling, Reiner, Caldwell, Powers, Lester, Stone) are at issue.
- Policy offered options: promote to higher grade, rotate to HQ, or return to non-supervisory GS-13 investigative duties.
- Six plaintiffs either accepted promotions, retained GS-14, retired, or declined supervisory roles; actions challenged as age-based adverse effects.
- Plaintiffs seek summary judgment against six and to preserve disparate-impact claims; court grants against both.
- Court analyzes whether these six suffered adverse employment actions and whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable against federal employers under the ADEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six plaintiffs suffered an adverse employment action | Codling, Reiner, Caldwell, Powers, Lester, Stone. | Policy actions altered duties or retirement decisions are not adverse actions. | No adverse employment action for all six; summary judgment for defendant. |
| Whether the six plaintiffs’ retirements were involuntary | Powers, Lester, Stone were coerced to retire by policy. | Resignations were voluntary; alternatives existed. | Retirements were voluntary; no involuntary-action claim. |
| Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable against federal employers under the ADEA | Federal section § 633a prohibits age-based discrimination including disparate impact. | No express waiver; disparate-impact claims not authorized against federal employers. | Disparate-impact claims against federal employers under the ADEA are not cognizable; claims dismissed. |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the disparate-impact claims | Aliotta supports federal‑sector disparate-impact claims under § 633a. | Aliotta does not extend to federal sector claims; Smith governs. | Court lacks jurisdiction over disparate-impact claims; dismisses them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (adverse action requires materially adverse consequences in employment terms)
- Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (adverse action includes significant changes in employment status or duties)
- Aliotta v. Bair, 614 F.3d 556 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (disparate-impact claims under ADEA available in some contexts; issues of voluntariness and jurisdiction discussed)
- Keyes v. District of Columbia, 372 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (involuntary resignation standard requires objective compulsion by agency circumstances)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (non-federal ADEA section supports disparate-impact claims; federal section does not)