Drewrey v. Clinton
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7367
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff, African-American, sues Department of State under Title VII alleging race discrimination and retaliation for protected activity.
- Plaintiff worked since 1988; in 2003 he became a GS-12 Management Analyst in OBO's MSD; supervised by Coquis, a Hispanic.
- From Nov 2005 to Aug 2008, escalating disputes between plaintiff and Coquis include reassignment to Travel Office and performance concerns.
- Nov 17, 2005: plaintiff assigned to Travel Office; plaintiff reluctant due to parental obligations and questioned duties.
- May 24, 2006: dispute over alleged misuse of leave; plaintiff allegedly shouted at Coquis when required to submit leave slip.
- Aug 1, 2006: Coquis issues a negative mid-year review; plaintiff placed on performance improvement plan after failure to improve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff timely exhausted his administrative remedies | Plaintiff contends continuing violation evidence supports claims. | Defendant asserts discrete acts time-barred if before 45-day window prior to Aug 7, 2006. | Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust for Nov 2005 and May 2006 incidents; claims time-barred. |
| Whether defendant's actions were pretext for discrimination or retaliation | Coquis misrepresented events; coworkers attested to hostility toward non-whites. | Insufficient evidence of pretext; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons exist (performance problems, insubordination). | plaintiff failed to show pretext; defendant's reasons are credible and nondiscriminatory. |
| Whether there is evidence of retaliation substantiating a causation link | Temporal proximity between EEO activity and adverse actions supports retaliation. | Proximity not sufficiently close; other evidence fails to show causal connection. | Temporal proximity insufficient; no causal link established for retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (discrete acts not actionable if time-barred; background evidence only)
- Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (pretext requires independent evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (three-part framework: prima facie case, employer's explanation, and pretext)
- Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (temporal proximity must be very close to show causality)
- Porter v. Fulgham, 601 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.D.C. 2009) (temporal proximity alone not enough for retaliation unless accompanied by other evidence)
- Vickers v. Powell, 493 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (pretext requires more than bald assertions; credibility attacks insufficient)
- Smith v. Dist. of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (employee insubordination and performance failures can be legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons)