Burke v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., 926 F. Supp. 2d 352

This is a DC Human Rights Act discrimination and retaliation case against Inter-Con Security Systems arising from alleged gender discrimination (Count I) and retaliation (Count II).
Burke, a security guard for Inter-Con at State Department facilities in DC since July 2008, alleges he was treated differently because of his gender and after filing suit.
An end-December 2009 New Year’s Eve incident with co-worker Tonya Jackson led to Burke’s temporary suspension and to Jackson’s discipline; Burke was later reinstated and relocated to avoid interaction with Jackson.
Burke was suspended for five days after a November 18, 2010 no-show allegation tied to schedule changes and alleged forged signature; he contends the signature was forged and he received no notice.
Inter-Con’s investigation of the November 18 incident led to a five-day suspension; Burke alleges pretext and gender bias, while Inter-Con argues legitimate, non-discriminatory discipline.
The court grants summary judgment to Inter-Con on both counts, concluding no genuine dispute on material facts supports Burke’s discrimination or retaliation claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Burke’s schedule change/transfer constitutes an adverse action	Burke alleges harm from erratic scheduling and relocation.	Schedule change is a minor inconvenience, not an adverse action.	No actionable adverse action; not objectively tangible harm.
Whether the transfer/schedule change was pretext for gender discrimination	Disparate treatment indicates pretext for gender bias.	Reasons are legitimate and not pretextual; Jackson’s and Burke’s situations are not similarly situated.	No reasonable evidence of pretext; no discrimination established.
Whether Burke’s five-day suspension for November 18 constitutes retaliation for filing suit	Suspension was retaliatory for protected activity (lawsuit).	Suspension followed a genuine investigation into a no-show and forged schedule; supervisors had knowledge of facts, not protected activity.	Insufficient evidence that decision was retaliatory; no knowledge by decision-makers of protected activity.

Ginger v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (adverse action requires a material change in employment status)
Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (significant change in employment status required for discrimination)
Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (definition of adverse action in discrimination claims)
Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (framework for evaluating pretext in discrimination/retaliation; burden shifting)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (pretext analysis under burden-shifting framework)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 1993) (burden-shifting schema for proving discrimination)
Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (retaliation evidence requires knowledge of protected activity by decision-makers)