Baird v. Gotbaum
398 U.S. App. D.C. 290
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Baird, an African-American female attorney for PBGC, sues PBGC alleging Title VII discrimination, retaliation, and retaliatory hostile work environment.
- District court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Four discrete episodes are alleged as discriminatory/retaliatory events: (1) emails calling Baird “psychotic”; (2) HR singled out her for signature on an email memo; (3) counsel’s cautionary email about certain staff; (4) witness Ruben Moreno’s treatment during her deposition.
- Plaintiff also asserts a retaliatory hostile work environment claim based on the four episodes and other time-barred events.
- Court reviews only the four discrete episodes and the retaliatory hostile environment claim; dispositive standard follows Iqbal/Twombly; district court’s dismissal affirmed for some counts and vacated/remanded for hostile environment analysis.
- Court clarifies standard: discrimination claims require adverse action; retaliation adopts broader standard; hostile environment may be retaliation if severe/pervasive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discrete acts constitute adverse action for discrimination/retaliation | Baird argues acts are adverse due to discriminatory/retaliatory intent and failure to remediate. | PBGC argues acts do not cause objective harm or employment status change. | Dismissed for failure to state a claim on all four discrete acts. |
| Whether PBGC failure to remediate can support retaliation claims | Failure to remedy constitutes retaliatory conduct. | Remediation failure alone not actionable. | Dismissed; however remand to address Morgan-related Morgan linkage for hostile environment. |
| Whether time-barred acts can be included in hostile environment claim under Morgan | Time-barred acts should be included if linked to timely acts. | Morgan linkage not sufficiently established across time-barred acts. | Court vacates district court’s exclusion; remands to determine which acts qualify under Morgan. |
| Whether underlying uninvestigated conduct can support hostile environment claim | Underlying conduct, if retaliatory, supports hostile environment. | Only investigation failures were considered; underlying acts need not be retaliatory. | Not resolved; remanded to determine if underlying acts can support the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (retaliatory failure to investigate threats can survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Morgan, Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v., 536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court 2002) (hostile environment claims can include acts within and outside limitations period if linked)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (sporadic conduct may not support retaliation without sufficient connection)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court 1993) (standard for hostile environment must be severe or pervasive)
- Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (illustrates when supervisory conduct lacks adverse action without salary/benefits effects)
- Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (supervisor delays in evaluations not adverse action)