Calhoun v. Johnson
394 U.S. App. D.C. 163
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Calhoun, an African-American GS-13 Computer Specialist in GSA's Office of Information Technology, applied in 2000 for a newly created GS-14 Computer Specialist position; Whitson left for vacation and directed his deputy Peterson-Parker to select Bradfield, an Asian-American, for the position; Whitson/officials later asserted Bradfield was the better-qualified candidate; Calhoun later, by 2003-04, sought three ORP Program Expert vacancies but was not selected; the ORP selects Holstrom, Burmeister, and McDonald (all white) over Calhoun; district court granted summary judgment for GSA on both OIT and ORP claims; the DC Circuit reverses on the OIT discrimination claim and remands for trial, while affirming on other claims; the case involves a McDonnell Douglas framework to evaluate evidence of pretext and discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination in OIT non-selection at issue | Calhoun was more qualified; Whitson knowingly discriminated | Bradfield was most qualified; Whitson acted non-discriminatorily | Remand for trial on discrimination claim |
| Knowledge of discrimination by selecting official | Whitson knew Calhoun would be candidate | Whitson acted before Calhoun applied | Genuine dispute on knowledge and pretext remains |
| Was Bradfield more qualified overall | Calhoun superior on multiple factors | Bradfield superior in key aspects; rating supported by evidence | Dispute on qualifications precludes summary judgment on OIT claim |
| Pretext evidence sufficiency | Employer's reasons are pretextual given superior Calhoun qualifications | Reasons credible and substantiated by records | Evidence could support a finding of pretext; summary judgment reversed for OIT claim |
| ORP non-selection claims whether viable pretext | Calhoun's higher HR ratings show merit-based pretext | Experience gap justified by real estate credentials | District court correct to dismiss ORP claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (summary judgment pretext framework; strong evidence of qualification gap supports pretext inference)
- Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc; discrimination inference from markedly superior qualifications)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (pretext and qualification comparison under Brady framework)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (simplified McDonnell Douglas analysis for Title VII retaliation/discrimination)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (application of McDonnell Douglas/Brady framework to retaliation)