Donna Trask v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6168
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Two long‑time Bay Pines VA pharmacists (Trask, b.1953; Truitt, b.1955) applied for newly created PACT pharmacist positions that required an "advanced scope" (independent prescriptive authority). Both lacked advanced scopes; successful applicants all had them and prior experience prescribing under those scopes.
- Bay Pines implemented a PACT pilot at Lakeside where Dr. Steele (a younger male) trained and obtained an advanced scope because his site was chosen for the pilot; Bay Pines later posted six main‑campus PACT positions open to internal applicants.
- The VA selected six pharmacists (all with advanced scopes) for the PACT roles; plaintiffs were not selected and were reassigned to the outpatient float pool with no pay loss but different duties they described as reduced prestige.
- Plaintiffs filed EEO complaints alleging gender and age discrimination, denial of training/advanced scopes, retaliation, and hostile work environment; they sued under Title VII and the ADEA and lost on summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the VA; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding plaintiffs failed to make prima facie showings (objective qualifications or valid comparators), and failed to show pretext or materially adverse retaliatory actions.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non‑selection for PACT positions | Plaintiffs argued they were qualified and were denied selection due to age/gender | Bay Pines argued PACT required objective qualification—an advanced scope—and plaintiffs lacked it and requisite experience | Held: Plaintiffs failed prima facie; they lacked objective qualification (advanced scope); summary judgment affirmed |
| Denial of advanced scope / training | Plaintiffs argued they were denied scopes/training because of age/gender | Bay Pines said plaintiffs’ jobs didn’t require an advanced scope, applications lacked required training data, and the pilot/site choices explained who trained | Held: Plaintiffs failed prima facie disparate treatment; comparator (Steele) not "nearly identical"; also no convincing mosaic of discrimination |
| Retaliation (reassignment, reviews, meeting restrictions) | Plaintiffs said EEO contact caused reassignment, downgraded review, and meeting restrictions | Bay Pines noted reassignment plan predated EEO contact, no pay/grade loss, and legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons | Held: No actionable retaliation — likely not materially adverse; no but‑for causation or evidence of pretext |
| Hostile work environment | Plaintiffs cited rude/derogatory conduct during PACT rollout and union interactions | Bay Pines argued conduct wasn’t tied to protected characteristics and wasn’t sufficiently severe or pervasive | Held: No hostile work environment — comments not shown to be based on age/gender and not severe/pervasive enough |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (prima facie qualification requires objective criteria)
- EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2002) (failure‑to‑hire prima facie elements)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2012) (harassment must be based on protected characteristic)
- Gupta v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571 (11th Cir. 2000) (elements of hostile work environment)