Colbert v. Tapella
396 U.S. App. D.C. 375
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Colbert, a Black woman, worked for the GPO for over 30 years and applied in 2005 for two Supervisory Printing Services Specialist positions.
- GPO posted two vacancies with identical KSAOs; positions differed in shift and pay level; Hammond evaluated written applications and his own knowledge, without interviewing candidates.
- Hammond selected two white men, Benjamin and Milans, for the two openings, despite Colbert's long tenure and qualifications.
- Colbert filed a Title VII discrimination claim alleging race and gender discrimination; after discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for GPO.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that a jury could find discrimination given the false statement Colbert ‘wandered’ used by Hammond and other evidence suggesting discriminatory practices in CPS.
- The court clarified the proper pretext framework and held that summary judgment was inappropriate where the record showed possible pretext and discrimination, especially in light of Hammond's admission that his stated reason was not true.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPO's stated reason was pretext for discrimination | Colbert argues Hammond lied about qualifications; pretext shown. | GPO claims reason was legitimate and non-discriminatory. | Yes; pretext shown, material fact for trial. |
| Whether evidence of pretext requires showing discrimination was actual reason | Colbert need only show pretext; discriminatory motive may be inferred. | Plaintiff must prove actual discrimination beyond pretext. | No; inference of discrimination allowed where pretext is shown and evidence supports discriminatory motive. |
| Adequacy of summary judgment standard under Brady/Aka in this case | Aka allows rejection of proffered reasons to support discrimination claim without needing the ‘true’ rationale beyond pretext. | If non-discriminatory reason not shown to be pretext, summary judgment appropriate. | Summary judgment inappropriate; record supports possible discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (central question: can employee show reason is not actual reason and discrimination occurred)
- Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc; pretext framework; discrimination can be inferred from false explanation)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext may suffice if no other independent evidence of discrimination; not absolute rule)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext framework and burden-shifting in Title VII cases)
- Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (limits on using comparative qualifications to prove discrimination; discusses pretext standards)
- Hendricks v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1008 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (illustrates limits of employer’s proffered reasons and discrimination evidence at summary judgment)