Cruz v. Johnson
241 F. Supp. 3d 107
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Elisa R. Cruz, a FEMA Chief Information Security Officer, was investigated after multiple reports that she behaved demeaning and unprofessionally toward subordinates and colleagues.
- An independent Labor & Employee Relations specialist recommended reassignment if the complaints were corroborated; a fact-finding investigation corroborated the complaints.
- Cruz received a written warning and was detailed to DHS Headquarters while supervisors sought a position that reduced her supervisory contact with complaining employees.
- The temporary 90-day detail was extended several months while a suitable GS-15 supervisory vacancy was located; Cruz amended her EEO complaint to allege retaliation for filing the EEO claim.
- Cruz was later permanently reassigned to a Supervisory IT Program Manager position in a different FEMA division; her grade and pay were unchanged, but the role did not utilize her specialized information-security duties.
- The EEOC closed her administrative complaint after investigation; DHS moved for summary judgment, arguing the reassignments remedied interpersonal issues and were not discriminatory or retaliatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reassignment/detail were discriminatory under Title VII | Cruz contends the actions were motivated by race, sex, and national origin | DHS says reassignment was a non-discriminatory response to corroborated misconduct and aimed to limit contact with complaining employees | Court: No reasonable jury could find pretext; summary judgment for DHS on discrimination claim |
| Whether Cruz established pretext to rebut DHS's legitimate reason | Cruz argued the discipline was excessive and suggests disparate treatment (needs discovery) | DHS produced independent, corroborative investigation showing reassignment was appropriate and not based on protected characteristics | Court: Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of pretext; discovery unnecessary; DHS's explanation credible |
| Whether extension of detail and later reassignment were retaliatory under Title VII | Cruz argues temporal proximity and skill-mismatch show causation after she filed an EEO complaint | DHS contends the adverse actions were already set in motion by the misconduct finding and the reassignment aimed to remove supervisory contact | Court: No causal link; timing insufficient because the decision to reassign predated/was already underway; summary judgment for DHS on retaliation claim |
| Whether additional discovery under Rule 56(d) was warranted | Cruz requested discovery to identify comparators and other incidents showing disparate treatment | DHS argued such discovery would be unlikely to undermine the independent investigative evidence and the preexisting plan to reassign Cruz | Court: Denied; requested discovery not necessary to defeat summary judgment given the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard and reasonable-jury inquiry)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmoving party must produce evidence to avoid summary judgment)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir.) (at summary judgment focus on whether employer's explanation is pretext)
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir.) (elements of Title VII retaliation claim)
- Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity insufficient when adverse action was contemplated before protected activity)
- Moore v. United States, 213 F.3d 705 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for Rule 56(d) discovery)
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir.) (evidence sought via discovery must be necessary to litigation)
- Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 101 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir.) (local-rule consequences when nonmoving party fails to dispute moving party's facts)