Burford v. Yellen
246 F. Supp. 3d 161
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff DeBora Burford, a senior law enforcement officer at the Federal Reserve Board (LEU), alleges sex- and age-based discrimination and retaliation after she filed EEO complaints beginning August 2010; she was later terminated (notice given December 8, 2011; effective February 29, 2012).
- Core factual allegations include repeated confrontations with a younger probationary officer (Shandra Love), supervisory inaction (Lt. Larence Dublin), reassignment to prolonged standing posts carrying heavy equipment, an aggressive interrogation about an alleged memorandum leak, vandalism of her car with a threatening note, alleged unlawful disclosure of her phone records, and ultimately termination tied to purported criminal allegations.
- Burford pursued administrative EEO channels; the EEOC upheld the agency’s grant of summary judgment for the Board as to certain claims, and some discrete acts (vandalism, malicious prosecution, termination) were not administratively exhausted before suit.
- Procedural posture: Board moved to dismiss Counts 1–7 under Rule 12(b)(6) and Count 8 (DCHRA) under Rule 12(b)(1); alternatively moved for summary judgment. Burford moved to strike the Board’s motion.
- Court’s disposition: granted in part and denied in part — dismissed disparate treatment (Counts 1–3), disparate impact (Count 4), hostile environment (Count 5), whistleblower claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j (Count 7), and DCHRA (Count 8); allowed retaliation claim (Count 6) to proceed as to the multi-week standing-post assignments; denied Burford’s motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burford pleaded disparate-treatment discrimination (Title VII/ADEA) | Age and sex discrimination via supervisor inaction, reassignment of duties, interrogation, and termination were adverse actions tied to protected status | Complaints do not allege actionable adverse employment actions or facts linking actions to age/sex; many acts are discrete and unexhausted | Dismissed for failure to plead actionable disparate-treatment claims (Counts 1–3) |
| Whether Burford pleaded disparate-impact claim (Title VII/ADEA) | Board policies had a disproportionate adverse effect on protected classes | No facially neutral policy or statistical disparity alleged | Dismissed for failure to plead disparate-impact (Count 4) |
| Whether Burford pleaded a hostile work environment (Title VII/ADEA) | Multiple incidents cumulatively created an abusive, discriminatory environment | Allegations are interpersonal disputes lacking factual nexus to sex/age or sufficient severity/pervasiveness | Dismissed for failure to plead hostile work environment (Count 5) |
| Whether Burford pleaded retaliation for protected EEO activity (Title VII/ADEA) | After initiating EEO counseling/complaint, she was assigned prolonged standing posts and otherwise subjected to adverse conduct | Many asserted acts are minor or not causally tied; some discrete acts unexhausted | Retaliation claim survives solely as to the prolonged standing-post assignments (Count 6); other discrete retaliatory acts dismissed for failure to exhaust or to state a claim |
| Whether § 1831j whistleblower claim is timely | Plaintiff alleges whistleblower retaliation tied to disclosures of legal violations | Statute has a two-year limitations period measured from termination; claim filed after limitations period | Dismissed as time-barred (Count 7) |
| Whether DCHRA claim can proceed against federal entity | Alleged DCHRA violations by Board employees and aiding-and-abetting | Sovereign immunity bars DCHRA claims against the federal government | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Count 8) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (jurisdictional limits of federal courts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to pleading-stage credit)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA but-for causation rule)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation required for retaliation claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse-action standard)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts require separate administrative exhaustion)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and evidentiary inferences)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)