Danita Walker v. Jeh Johnson
418 U.S. App. D.C. 364
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Danita Walker, an African-American GS-12 ICE employee, sued DHS under Title VII alleging race discrimination and retaliation by her white supervisor, Walter LeRoy, for actions between 2008–2009 (AWOL charges, a mid-level performance rating, a Letter of Reprimand, and denial of promotion).
- LeRoy became Walker’s supervisor in March 2008; Walker had filed an unrelated EEO complaint the month before and settled it in May 2008. LeRoy learned of the ongoing mediation in April 2008.
- Walker had numerous unscheduled absences/tardies (about 17 between March–June 2008); LeRoy initially excused them but then issued a June 25, 2008 Leave Restriction Letter setting strict leave-notification procedures and warning of AWOL charges.
- In October 2008 LeRoy gave Walker an "achieving expectations" (mid-level) rating; Walker contacted an EEO counselor the same day. Later AWOL charges (Oct 2008, Feb 2009) and a February 2009 Letter of Reprimand cited failure to follow leave procedures and an allegedly abrupt meeting interruption.
- Walker applied for a GS-13/14 promotion; her November 2008 referral was later passed over by OPM as lacking qualifications, and LeRoy’s September 2009 selection packet showed only GS-14 candidates; Walker was not chosen.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DHS; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, concluding the record could not support a reasonable jury finding LeRoy’s stated non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons were pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker suffered actionable discrimination or retaliation (adverse actions: AWOL charges, rating, reprimand, promotion denial) | Walker: actions were motivated by race and retaliation for prior EEO activity; timing and supervisor's disparate treatment show motive | DHS: offered legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons (attendance violations, failure to follow procedures, lack of qualifications for promotion) | Held: No. Evidence insufficient to show employer reasons were pretext for discrimination or retaliation |
| Whether temporal proximity supports inference of retaliation | Walker: LeRoy learned of EEO activity in April 2008; Leave Restriction Letter followed in June 2008 — shows retaliatory timing | DHS: supervisor excused many absences after learning of EEO activity; delay and intervening conduct undercut mere-proximity inference | Held: Temporal proximity alone insufficient here; conduct did not show a sudden change or immediate reprisal |
| Whether inconsistencies in accounts (leave-slip incident) show pretext | Walker: variations in descriptions of incident and reprimand rationale undermine credibility of LeRoy’s explanations | DHS: variations are minor and account descriptions are materially consistent; no evidence LeRoy did not genuinely believe his assessment | Held: Minor descriptive differences do not create genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext |
| Whether denial of promotion was pretextual (comparator / referral list dispute) | Walker: she was referred by OPM in Nov 2008; this contradicts LeRoy’s claim that only GS-14 candidates were considered, showing falsity and pretext | DHS: OPM later removed Walker for lacking qualifications before LeRoy received the September 2009 list; selection form shows selection from GS-14 list; Walker’s evidence is speculative | Held: No genuine dispute that LeRoy acted on a GS-14 candidate list; plaintiff’s evidence does not prove falsity or pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and limits on reliance on pretext evidence alone at summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for disparate-treatment proof)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; reasonable juror inquiry)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (elements of prima facie discrimination and pretext evidence types)
- Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (limits on inferring retaliation from mere temporal proximity)
- Colbert v. Tapella, 649 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (employer’s admitted lies plus systemic indicia can support inference of discriminatory motive)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) ("cat’s-paw" liability where biased supervisor’s recommendation is a causal factor)
- Griffin v. Washington Convention Ctr., 142 F.3d 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (cat’s-paw theory explained)
- Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (what constitutes a materially adverse rating)
- Vatel v. Alliance of Auto. Mfrs., 627 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (the decisionmaker’s perception is the relevant standard for evaluating performance-based decisions)