Dorothy Buchhagen v. ICF International, Inc.
650 F. App'x 824
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Dorothy Buchhagen, then in her mid-60s, was hired to work on NCI’s CIAT contract and later retained/promoted by Z‑Tech with a substantial raise and supervisory relationship with Dr. Beebe.
- After a 2009 mistake uploading a Spanish image, Buchhagen’s relationship with supervisor Beebe deteriorated; Z‑Tech documented recurring insubordination and refusal to accept supervision.
- Z‑Tech placed Buchhagen on a Process Improvement Plan (PIP) in June 2010, warning that failure to improve would lead to termination; warnings and planning to terminate predated Buchhagen’s age-related complaint.
- On July 20, 2010, shortly before termination, Buchhagen for the first time mentioned age as a protected characteristic in a broader complaint to HR; she was terminated days later.
- Buchhagen sued under the ADEA for hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and retaliation; after prior appellate remand on some claims, the district court granted summary judgment for Z‑Tech on the retaliation claim and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buchhagen engaged in protected activity under the ADEA | Buchhagen contends her complaints, culminating in a July 20 email mentioning age, constituted protected activity | Z‑Tech argues her complaints were mostly about harassment/supervision and mentioned age only once as an afterthought | Court assumed, for efficiency, the July 20 reference could be protected activity but found it weak and largely a stray reference |
| Whether termination was an adverse employment action causally connected to protected activity | Buchhagen argues temporal proximity and alleged retaliatory motive support causation | Z‑Tech points to documented insubordination, preexisting plans (PIP and draft warnings), and legitimate nonretaliatory reasons for termination | Held that causation was not shown; employer had legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons predating protected activity |
| Whether Z‑Tech’s stated reasons were pretext for retaliation | Buchhagen argues reasons were pretextual and timing shows retaliation | Z‑Tech shows record evidence of repeated noncompliance, PIP, warnings drafted before age complaint | Court held plaintiff failed to show falsity plus that retaliation was the real reason; proffered reasons were convincing and undisputed |
| Whether temporal proximity alone can defeat summary judgment once employer offers nonretaliatory reason | Buchhagen relies on timing between complaint and firing | Z‑Tech argues timing is insufficient given preexisting documentary evidence of discipline and termination planning | Court held timing alone insufficient; without more, summary judgment for employer is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015) (but‑for causation and McDonnell Douglas framework application)
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (elements of retaliation prima facie case and burden‑shifting)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- EEOC v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 424 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2005) (low bar for establishing protected activity)
- Baqir v. Principi, 434 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2006) (retaliation requires employer knowledge of protected activity and timing analysis)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2015) (temporal proximity may support prima facie causation)
- Pinkerton v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (timing alone generally cannot defeat summary judgment when employer offers convincing nonretaliatory explanation)
- Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 696 (4th Cir. 2001) (employee’s assertions insufficient to show pretext at summary judgment)