Barnett v. PA CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
818 F. Supp. 2d 159
D.D.C.2011Background
- Barnett sued PA Consulting Group, Inc. for age and gender discrimination under ADEA and DCHRA after a 2003 RIF in PA's Transportation Group, which was merged into ITI during PA's restructuring.
- PA asserted the RIF was non-discriminatory, rooted in post-9/11 financial distress and strategic refocusing on core aviation/airline work.
- PA produced evidence that Patrick Kelly, not PA's top executives, made the decision to terminate Barnett, with Moynihan and Tindale in evaluative or oversight roles only.
- The Transportation Group suffered substantial losses after 9/11; PA ordered a restructuring, leadership changes, and the elimination of non-core activities.
- Barnett argued PA’s actions reflected age and gender bias; the court evaluated whether PA’s proffered non-discriminatory reason was pretextual and whether the decision-maker’s role showed discriminatory intent.
- The court granted summary judgment for PA, concluding Barnett failed to show genuine facts supporting discrimination or pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA's proffered reason was pretext for discrimination | Barnett argues pretext via management involvement and age/gender bias | PA argues non-discriminatory fit-based rationale | PA's reason accepted; Barnett failed to prove pretext |
| Whether Kelly was the sole decision-maker | Barnett contends Moynihan/Tindale influenced termination | Kelly alone made the decision | Court finds Kelly was the sole decision-maker |
| Whether the RIF evidence supports discrimination claims | Barnett cites age/gender statistics and comparisons | Statistics do not show discriminatory intent; other factors explained decision | No reasonable inference of discrimination from the evidence |
| Whether the China office terminations and other terminations support discrimination claims | Disparate impact on older women | China terminations separate; not probative of Barnett's case | Not probative to show discrimination against Barnett |
| Whether the evidence shows a legitimate business justification for Barnett's termination | Trade practice misfit was a pretext | Trade misfit was core justification; not pretextual | Evidence supports business justification; no triable issue on pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Orr v. Barzingus, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (not applicable; example format kept for consistency)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine disputes on material facts)
- Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (pretext framework for discrimination claims)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (evaluate evidence of discrimination in totality)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (consideration of all evidence to infer discrimination)
- Wicks v. American Transmission Co. LLC, 701 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2010) (pretext evidence standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)