Camille Grosdidier v. Broadcasting Board of Governors
709 F.3d 19
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Grosdidier, a white French national, has worked as a GS-12 editor at VOA since 1991 in the French to Africa Service.
- In 2002 she was not promoted to GS-13, and she had prior EEO complaints in 2004 and 2005 about coworker conduct.
- In 2006 a GS-13 Senior Editor position in her service was filled by Timothee Donangmaye; a panel interviewed applicants and recommended Donangmaye, with notes kept by one panelist only.
- Dia, Grosdidier’s supervisor, forwarded the panel’s recommendation to supervisors; Donangmaye was promoted.
- Grosdidier alleged discrimination on gender, race, and national origin and retaliation for her prior EEO activity, and she later challenged the selection process itself.
- Two panelists destroyed their interview notes despite an EEOC preservation regulation, creating a potential spoliation issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grosdidier’s retaliation claim is viable as a hostile-work-environment theory | Grosdidier contends conduct created a hostile environment constituting retaliation. | BBG argues the conduct was not unlawful and not sufficiently severe or pervasive. | Summary judgment on retaliation claims affirmed. |
| Whether there was evidence of discrimination in the GS-13 hiring sufficient to defeat summary judgment | Grosdidier asserts pretext and stronger qualifications evidence show discrimination. | BBG maintains a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for selecting Donangmaye; pretext-plus not required. | Court rejected pretext-plus approach; no genuine discrimination under the record; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether spoliation of interview notes warrants an adverse inference and affects summary judgment | Destroyed notes could reveal pretext or discrimination supporting Grosdidier. | Adverse inference should be limited or denied absent bad faith; evidence insufficient. | Adverse spoliation inference warranted but harmless to overall outcome; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (framework for analyzing discrimination after legitimate reason found)
- Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (pretext evidence and employer misjudgments relevant to pretext inquiry)
- Talavera v. District of Columbia, 638 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (spoliation inference context in Title VII)
- Goostree v. Tennessee, 796 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1986) (employer discretion in structuring job qualifications)
- Salazar v. Wash. Metro. Transit Auth., 401 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (statements on evaluation and inference guidance)
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (good-faith belief required for protected activity)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (environment must be sufficiently hostile; objective standard)