Beshir v. Salazar, 961 F. Supp. 2d 114

Beshir, an African-American woman, was 51 in 2007 and employed by BLM (DOI) as a GS-13 Information Collection Clearance Officer.
She drafted PRA burden estimates for information collection packages, which were reviewed by Hudson and then submitted to Bieniewicz for OMB processing.
Ruth Solomon was the prior OMB desk officer; in 2007, Rob Johansson replaced her as desk officer.
Beshir faced disputes with Hudson over revised burden estimates and formatting problems, leading to escalating conflict and staff admonitions.
In August 2007, Beshir’s drafts were altered by Hudson; she refused to make changes, citing OMB guidelines, which sparked a disciplinary process and ultimately an unpaid five-day suspension.
Beshir was placed on administrative leave, later detailed to the Eastern States Office; she filed Title VII and ADEA claims in 2011 seeking redress for alleged discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOI’s reasons for actions were pretextual discrimination	Beshir contends higher scrutiny and disparate treatment based on race/sex.	DOI had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for actions tied to insubordination and conduct.	No actionable pretext; actions deemed non-discriminatory.
Whether the alleged harassment was severe and pervasive enough for a hostile work environment	Beshir asserts ongoing beratement and pressure tied to race/sex.	Harassment not severe or pervasive enough to alter conditions of employment or tied to protected status.	Not sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment.
Whether Beshir suffered an adverse employment action under the ADEA due to age	Detailing to a lower-grade assignment and younger replacement show adverse action based on age.	No significant change in employment status; subjective distress alone is insufficient.	No ADEA adverse action; summary judgment granted on Count III.

Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discrimination proof via pretext framework not required to follow McDonnell Douglas after initial adverse action)
McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Title VII discrimination single-fact inquiry; pretext evidence insufficient here)
Primas v. Dist. of Columbia, 719 F.3d 693 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (clarifies discrimination analysis burden after legitimate reasons given)
Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (discrimination burden at summary judgment stage)
Aliotta v. Bair, 614 F.3d 556 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (comparator and pretext considerations in Title VII claims)
Ford v. Mabus, 629 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (admissible frameworks for ADEA claims; burden-shifting guidance)
Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (hostile environment and discrimination linkage—totality of circumstances)
Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (adverse action and its limits in employment claims)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court 1993) (standard for actionable hostile environment claims)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court 1998) (discrimination requires conduct to be discriminatory because of protected status)