Cheatham v. Holder, 935 F. Supp. 2d 225

Cheatham, a paralegal specialist at USAO, applied for four supervisory paralegal positions in 2008; all four were filled by women.
EEO counseling began after he claimed discrimination for two non-selections; a 2009 ROI focused on Misdemeanor and Felony positions, with Grand Jury and Domestic Violence briefly mentioned.
Cheatham sought to amend the charge to include the Grand Jury and Domestic Violence non-selections; Administrative Judge denied the motion to amend.
Cheatham filed formal EEO complaint in 2008; the agency accepted investigation of two non-selections (Misdemeanor and Felony) but not the other two.
He filed suit in 2012 after exhaustion and a later compulsion to supplement the ROI; the court addresses exhaustion and retaliation claims.
Two retaliation acts are at issue: (1) a 2010 reduction of Cheatham’s performance rating from Outstanding to Successful, and (2) a $1,500 cash award not received due to a budgeting/error mistake.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Cheatham’s discrimination claim exhausted?	Cheatham exhausted through EEO counseling and formal complaint for four positions.	Only two non-selections were investigated; the Grand Jury and Domestic Violence claims were not exhausted.	Yes; summary judgment granted for USAO on discrimination due to failure to exhaust for two non-selections.
Are the retaliation claims viable?	Retaliation occurred via adverse actions following EEO activity.	Some actions were not materially adverse or were explained by non-retaliatory reasons; some disputed facts remain.	Yes for one count (2010 performance rating dispute) is unresolved; grant in favor of USAO on cash award claim.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation extends beyond workplace actions)
Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 65 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (exhaustion prerequisites for federal sector discrimination claims)
Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (exhaustion and notice requirements in federal EEO process)
Carter v. Rubin, 14 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1998) (timeliness and final action deadlines for federal EEO challenges)
Price v. Greenspan, 374 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.D.C. 2005) (timing after final agency action in federal EEO cases)
McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (retaliation standard and elements)
Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (pretext evaluation in retaliation claims)
Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (retaliation scope and inquiry following EEO activity)