Blocker-Burnette v. District of Columbia
842 F. Supp. 2d 329
D.D.C.2012Background
- Blocker-Burnette, age 59, was terminated from APRA on November 8, 2007 after ~29 years of service.
- Fernandez-Whitney became APRA’s Senior Deputy Director on June 25, 2007 and began a functional realignment.
- The Medicaid Division was dissolved and staff, including Blocker-Burnette, were transferred to the ARC under the realignment.
- Blocker-Burnette was assigned to ARC duties but lacked a new formal title and questioned her qualifications for the new role.
- Blocker-Burnette alleged age discrimination (ADEA) and family-responsibilities discrimination (DC HRA); the District moved for summary judgment.
- The court denied summary judgment on the age-discrimination claim but granted it on the family-responsibilities claim and on the reassignment discrimination claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination based on age violated the ADEA | Blocker-Burnette argues termination was pretext for age bias | District claims a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: she was not qualified for ARC duties | Age claim survives summary judgment (pretext questions remain) |
| Whether termination due to family responsibilities violated DC HRA | Blocker-Burnette asserts termination for caring for family | Insufficient evidence of discrimination based on family responsibilities | Family-responsibilities claim granted summary judgment for District (no triable issue) |
| Whether reassignment to the ARC was discriminatory | Realignment targeted Blocker-Burnette for discriminatory reasons | Realignment was a broad agency restructuring with non-discriminatory explanations | No reasonable jury could find discrimination from reassignment |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discrimination summary judgment framework relevance at times uncertain)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (prima facie framework less essential at summary judgment in discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext analysis after legitimate non-discriminatory reason)
- Talavera v. Fore, 648 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2009) (comments suggesting bias; later reversed in Shah context)
- Shah v. United States Agency for International Development, 638 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (held that prior discriminatory remarks can be probative of pretext)
- Threadgill v. Spellings, 377 F. Supp. 2d 158 (D.D.C. 2005) (contextual evaluation of phrases like 'new blood' for age discrimination)