Bennett v. District of Columbia Public Schools
6 F. Supp. 3d 67
D.D.C.2013Background
- Bennett, age 59, was hired as a guidance counselor at Calvin Coolidge Senior High School in 2008 and was terminated in October 2009 after a DCPS Reduction-In-Force (RIF).
- Principal Thelma Jarrett assigned unweighted RIF scores on three factors (office/school needs 75%, contributions 10%, supplemental experience 10%); HR applied weighting and length-of-service (5%) to produce final scores.
- Bennett received the lowest weighted score (14.5) and was separated; two younger counselors (ages 48 and 25) received higher scores and were retained.
- Bennett alleges age discrimination under the ADEA and DCHRA and retaliation for prior complaints about age-based harassment by a coworker who allegedly called her an "old fogey."
- Jarrett’s written RIF narratives criticized Bennett’s attendance, collaboration, and supplemental experience and omitted Bennett’s advanced degrees; Bennett and coworkers dispute several of Jarrett’s characterizations.
- The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and denied both, finding genuine disputes of material fact on discrimination and retaliation/pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bennett established prima facie age discrimination | Bennett says she is in protected class, was qualified, terminated, and disadvantaged in favor of younger colleagues with higher RIF scores | DCPS asserts a legitimate, nondiscriminatory RIF explanation (low scores) and identifies Jarrett as scorer | Court: Bennett established prima facie; disputed facts preclude summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether defendant offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Bennett argues defendant failed to identify who produced the scores and that reasons are unsupported | DCPS produced RIF process, Jarrett’s signed scores, and weighted calculations | Court: DCPS articulated legitimate reason, but factual disputes permit finding pretext at trial |
| Whether RIF rationale was pretext for age discrimination | Bennett points to apparent misstatements, omissions, and inconsistencies in Jarrett’s narratives and differential treatment of comparators | DCPS argues honest belief in Jarrett’s evaluations controls; correctness is not required | Court: Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that Jarrett’s errors could be "too obvious to be unintentional," creating a jury question on pretext |
| Whether Bennett engaged in protected activity (retaliation claim) | Bennett asserts she complained about coworker’s ageist remarks to Jarrett and others | DCPS contends Bennett lacks clear recollection and thus did not engage in protected activity | Court: Credibility is for the jury; sufficient evidence exists to create triable issue on retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (evaluating whether evidence permits a finding of intentional discrimination)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue for trial)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135 (prima facie proof in termination cases)
- Hall v. Giant Food, 175 F.3d 1075 (elements of ADEA prima facie case)
- Ford v. Mabus, 629 F.3d 198 (ADEA analysis parallels Title VII)
- Vatel v. Alliance of Auto. Mfrs., 627 F.3d 1245 (DCHRA and pretext analysis)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (retaliation proof and inference of motive)
- Fischbach v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180 (employer’s honest belief doctrine)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (relevance of employer’s honest belief and pretext evidence)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (summary judgment and sufficiency of evidence)
- Goss v. George Washington Univ., 942 F. Supp. 659 (RIF as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)