Archie Little v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
123 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 55
| D.C. | 2014Background
- Archie Little was an instrumentation technician employed by C&E Services (C&E) on contracts to work at DC Water facilities; he was 74 in May 2009.
- C&E president Carl Biggs sent Little a letter in April 2009 thanking him and referencing retirement at the end of the contract; Little later alleged Biggs demanded his resignation and set a May 13 last day.
- Little alleged DC Water supervisors told C&E personnel that Little could not be on the job for a new contract, and that C&E’s contract would not be renewed if Little remained, so C&E forced him to retire/terminated him because of his age.
- Little sued under the D.C. Human Rights Act (age discrimination) against C&E and DC Water, and for tortious interference (against DC Water); the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants and Little appealed.
- The trial court concluded Little produced no direct evidence by decisionmakers, failed to make a prima facie circumstantial case (no proof he was treated differently than similarly situated younger employees), and presented no evidence DC Water communicated to Biggs to remove Little.
- On appeal the court affirmed: Little had not preserved certain alleged direct statements in his summary judgment filings, the stray remarks offered were insufficient, comparators were not similarly situated, and there was no evidence DC Water caused Biggs to terminate Little.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is direct evidence of age discrimination under the DCHRA | Little: Statements and remarks (e.g., “old man,” alleged Biggs remark about hiring younger workers) show age animus by decisionmakers | C&E/DC Water: Remarks are stray, not from decisionmakers or not shown to have informed Biggs’ decision; plaintiff failed to cite key statements in summary judgment papers | No direct evidence; court found remarks were stray or not preserved and insufficient to show decisionmaker motive |
| Whether circumstantial evidence establishes a prima facie age-discrimination claim (McDonnell Douglas framework) | Little: He was the only C&E employee removed despite younger employees being retained; hiring shortly before termination suggests pretext | Defendants: No proof contract was overstaffed, comparators had different qualifications/roles, Little was higher-paid and certified; no established last-hired-first-fired practice applied to him | No prima facie case; comparators not similarly situated and plaintiff offered insufficient evidence of disparate treatment |
| Whether DC Water tortiously interfered with Little’s employment relationship with C&E | Little: DC Water employees wanted him off the contract, which led to his termination | DC Water: No evidence anyone at DC Water communicated those views to Biggs or that such communications caused termination; Little was at-will | Summary judgment for DC Water affirmed; plaintiff failed to show DC Water knew of and intentionally induced termination or that Biggs was informed |
Key Cases Cited
- Furline v. Morrison, 953 A.2d 344 (D.C. 2008) (DCHRA prohibits adverse action motivated by age)
- Jung v. George Washington Univ., 875 A.2d 95 (D.C. 2005) (direct-evidence standard; stray remarks insufficient)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- McFarland v. George Washington Univ., 935 A.2d 337 (D.C. 2007) (requirements for prima facie inference when no replacement is alleged)
- McManus v. MCI Communications Corp., 748 A.2d 949 (D.C. 2000) (discussion of at-will employment and interference claims)
- Vessels v. District of Columbia, 531 A.2d 1016 (D.C. 1987) (court not required to search record for issues not raised by counsel)