Coleman v. Napolitano, 19 F. Supp. 3d 126

James Coleman, African-American, GS-13 on DHS Secretary’s briefing staff since March 2008, applied for a GS-14 Supervisory Production Specialist position (two openings) in 2010.
Selection board, including supervisor Rohner, interviewed Coleman and two others; Destry and Eckersley were ultimately selected; Coleman not chosen.
Elections: Eckersley declined the promotion; Millhench, a GS-14 from another office on detail, later transferred laterally into the open position in January 2011.
Coleman contacted DHS EEO office in December 2010 alleging race and age discrimination and retaliation; supervisor Rohner issued a Letter of Counseling (Dec. 30, 2010) and a Letter of Reprimand (Jan. 28, 2011).
Coleman pursued EEO proceedings; EEOC investigation later culminated in a right-to-sue letter; plaintiff filed this federal action August 15, 2012, asserting Title VII and ADEA claims.
The court allowed some claims to proceed and dismissed others; discovery was ordered to continue for discrimination claims, with several claims deemed non-adverse or unexhausted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are letters of counseling/reprimand adverse actions?	Coleman argues discipline based on race/age/protected activity.	Letters were non-tangible, not abusive, and did not affect pay/benefits.	Dismissed; such letters typically are not adverse actions.
Is there retaliation for failure to promote?	Non-promotion in 2010 constitutes retaliation for protected activity.	Promotion decision occurred before protected activity; no causal link.	Summary judgment for DHS; no genuine retaliation timing dispute; unexhausted 2011 transfer claim separately addressed.
Was the 2011 lateral transfer of Millhench properly exhausted?	Millhench transfer could be linked to Coleman’s claims as related conduct.	Claim was not exhausted administratively and not reasonably related to the 2010 charge.	Unexhausted; dismissed.
Discrimination claims for failure to promote (20010) survive for discovery?	Coleman was better qualified; discovery needed to prove failure to promote.	Coleman not shown substantially better qualifications; discovery lacking.	Denied summary judgment at this stage; discovery allowed; renewed motion possible.
Are hostile work environment or other unexhausted claims viable?	Possible harassment based on age/race; assertion in complaint.	No explicit hostile environment claim pressed; unexhausted claims may be dismissed.	Dismissed; unexhausted or inadequately pled claims.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (Iqbal standard for pleading plausibility)
Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (letters of counseling/reprimand rarely constitute adverse action)
Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (disciplinary letters not adverse action absent tangible effect)
Nurriddin v. Goldin, 382 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2005) (reprimand without tangible adverse action insufficient for discrimination claim)
Rashad v. WMATA, 945 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2013) (letter of reprimand lacking abusive language generally not adverse action)
Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (exhaustion and scope of administrative charges governing Title VII claims)
Koch v. Walter, 935 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D.D.C. 2013) (need for exhaustion; like-or-related to claims under Morgan framework)
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts require separate administrative exhaustion)
Atanus v. Sebelius, 652 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2009) (summary judgment based on credible, perjury-affirmed statements)