ALLFREY v. Mabus
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7846
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- Patricia Allfrey worked at PSNS from Oct 2001 to Feb 2010 as Lead Inventory Management Specialist in the NMOE Section under the NM Division.
- Ms. Patton advised filling the Supervisory Inventory Management Specialist role quickly; Walters placed someone temporarily until a permanent selection, and McDonald was recommended by Patton and Livick.
- Ms. Allfrey was not recommended for the temporary supervisory slot due to concerns about leadership and conflict resolution skills.
- Mr. McDonald began temporarily in the supervisory position in April 2008, with a promotion converted after NSPS transition in June 2008.
- Allfrey filed informal EEO complaints in 2008 alleging sex discrimination and retaliation; a formal EEO complaint followed in July 2008.
- An interview panel in Aug 2008 selected McDonald as the permanent supervisor; Allfrey alleged post-selection events and sick leave thereafter; she resigned in Feb 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment under Title VII | Allfrey alleges sex bias in McDonald's selection. | McDonald was more qualified; selection was legitimate non-discriminatory. | Summary judgment for Defendants on disparate treatment. |
| Pretext for discrimination (disparate treatment) | Reasons were pretextual (need for 'Bob', post-EEO advertising, false coworker claims). | No specific, substantial evidence of pretext; reasons credible and non-discriminatory. | Pretext not established; summary judgment for Defendants on pretext grounds. |
| Retaliation under Title VII | Filing EEO complaints led to adverse actions including promotion and duty reassignment. | Legitimate business reasons for McDonald's promotion and any duty reassignment; causal link lacking. | Plaintiff established prima facie but failed to show pretext; retaliation claim granted summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Hostile work environment | Not pled; alleges general hostile environment via retaliation. | Plaintiffs did not plead hostile environment; not addressed on the merits. | Not addressed; claim dismissed due to lack of pleading. |
| Loss of consortium | Consortium claim exists under Title VII. | Title VII provides exclusive remedy; consortium claim not cognizable. | Dismissed as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coghlan v. American Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005) (establishes McDonnell Douglas framework and pretext analysis)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material factual disputes require trial; summary judgment standard)
- T.W. Elec. Service Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (burden-shifting framework guidance for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment movant may negate nonmovant's burden with absence of evidence)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defining adverse action for retaliation claims)
- Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011) (expands scope of retaliation protections under Title VII)