926 F.Supp.2d 352
D.D.C.2013Background
- Burke, an Inter-Con security guard for State Department buildings in DC, sues Inter-Con for gender discrimination and retaliation under the DCHRA.
- Inter-Con suspended and transferred Burke after a New Year’s Eve incident with coworker Tonya Jackson; Jackson was disciplined and relocated.
- Burke later was suspended for five days after a November 18, 2010 no-show/forgery dispute; Burke contends this was retaliatory.
- Inter-Con conducted investigations and relied on witness statements to justify actions; Burke argues the reasons are pretextual.
- Court grants summary judgment to Inter-Con on both counts, finding no adverse action or pretext, and no evidence of retaliation knowledge of protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Burke’s schedule transfer an adverse employment action? | Burke claims schedule change harmed ability to take certification courses. | Schedule change was a minor inconvenience, not an adverse action. | No actionable adverse action; transfer not materially harmful. |
| Was the transfer evidence of gender discrimination/pretext? | Transfer signals gender bias against Burke. | Different roles and evidence show non-discriminatory rationale; not similarly situated. | No reasonable jury could find pretext; no discrimination shown. |
| Was Burke’s five-day suspension without pay retaliation for filing suit? | Suspension was retaliatory for protected activity. | Suspension grounded in alleged failure to show for shift after investigation. | Evidence insufficient to support retaliation; reason credible and based on investigation. |
| Did Burke’s knowledge of protected activity by supervisors support retaliation claim? | Supervisors’ knowledge of suit inferred retaliation. | No evidence supervisors knew of protected activity. | No causal link shown; no retaliation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ging er v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (adverse-action standard for discrimination claims; significance of materially adverse actions)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (adverse action and materially changes in employment status)
- Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (framework for assessing discrimination claims; material changes)
- Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (definition of materially adverse employment action)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (scope of actionable harm; objective vs subjective harm)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (pretext framework in discrimination/retaliation; required showing of true motive)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination")
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework within McDonnell Douglas)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (retaliation standard; knowledge of protected activity)
- Patterson v. Johnson, 505 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity evidence in retaliation)