David DeJesus v. WP Company LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20458

Background

DeJesus, a 59‑year‑old African‑American long‑tenured ad salesperson, was terminated by supervisor Noelle Wainwright in August 2011 and later reinstated by an arbitrator who found the Post failed to prove willful neglect/insubordination. He sued under Title VII, § 1981, and the ADEA.
The termination followed DeJesus’s ordering and in‑person presentation of a RAM (ad‑recall) study to Stacy Sharpe (an Allstate VP) after Wainwright was on vacation; Wainwright later criticized him for not getting prior authorization and for not delivering the study to a different Allstate official.
DeJesus alleges Wainwright treated him and other African‑American employees dismissively and that the Post engaged in a pattern of replacing older and more diverse staff with younger, whiter employees.
The Post’s stated reason for firing DeJesus was “willful neglect of duty and insubordination” tied to the RAM study incident; higher management ratified the termination.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Post; the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, finding genuine disputes of material fact on pretext and discriminatory motive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Post’s non‑discriminatory reason (willful neglect/insubordination) was pretext	DeJesus: Wainwright’s initial reaction was conciliatory, her later characterization inconsistent and unreasonable, and the arbitrator rejected the contractual grounds — supporting an inference of pretext	Post: The RAM study/failed delivery constituted insubordination and justified termination	Reversed: A reasonable jury could find the proffered reason pretextual given inconsistencies, prior praise, arbitration outcome, and suspicious characterization of the client
Whether evidence permits an inference of race discrimination under Title VII/§1981	DeJesus: Wainwright made coded/racially‑tinged remarks and treated Black employees worse; broader evidence of the Post phasing out African‑Americans supports discriminatory motive	Post: Termination based on legitimate work‑rule violation, not race	Held: Sufficient evidence (pretext + comments/pattern) to permit a jury to infer racial discrimination
Whether evidence permits an inference of age discrimination under the ADEA	DeJesus: Post had a management philosophy of replacing older employees; he was 59 and part of alleged downsizing of 40+ workers	Post: Termination based on RAM incident, not age	Held: Sufficient circumstantial evidence (pretext + pattern) to let a jury consider but‑for causation question for ADEA claim
Whether district court properly granted summary judgment	DeJesus: Genuine disputes of material fact exist on pretext and discriminatory motive that preclude summary judgment	Post: No reasonable jury could find discrimination; legitimate reason established	Held: District court erred; summary judgment reversed and case remanded for trial/proceedings

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but‑for causation)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff may survive summary judgment by showing employer’s reason is pretext and evidence permits inference of discrimination)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (factfinder’s disbelief of employer’s reasons can permit inference of discrimination)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (decisionmaker must have honestly and reasonably believed proffered reason)
Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (rebuttal/pretext standards and when additional evidence is required)
Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (summary judgment standard in D.C. Circuit employment cases)
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (consider record as a whole when reviewing summary judgment)