Duckett v. Foxx
672 F. App'x 45
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff George Duckett, pro se, an FAA employee, sued under Title VII and the ADEA after not receiving a promotion to Aviation Safety Engineer (Damage Tolerance Technical Specialist).
- Duckett alleged race and age discrimination, claiming the FAA promoted another employee instead of him.
- The promotion decision relied on a 17-question competency test administered verbally; both candidates had attended a relevant training workshop.
- Duckett argued the test was an invalid measure tailored to mask discriminatory motives and did not assess his specific expertise.
- The FAA relied on the test scores to select the promoted employee; Duckett conceded he scored lower and was not more qualified.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the FAA; Duckett appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duckett established a prima facie failure-to-promote claim under Title VII/ADEA | Duckett argued the selection test was invalid and designed to conceal discrimination, supporting an inference of discrimination | FAA argued selection was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory criteria: the promotion test scores | Court held Duckett failed to show circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination and thus did not make out a prima facie case |
| Whether the FAA's stated reason (higher test score) was pretext for discrimination | Duckett contended the test’s content and administration showed pretext | FAA pointed to higher score of the promoted candidate and discretionary choice among candidates | Court held Duckett presented no evidence rebutting the FAA’s legitimate reason; conceded he scored lower, so no pretext shown |
| Whether any procedural violation of FAA policy supported inference of discrimination | Duckett suggested the verbal administration and alleged inconsistencies violated HR policy and indicated bias | FAA maintained test was relevant to the position and properly administered | Court held Duckett failed to show any policy violation that suggested discriminatory motive |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Duckett argued disputed facts precluded summary judgment | FAA argued no genuine dispute of material fact on discrimination or pretext | Court held summary judgment for the FAA was appropriate and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223 (standard of review for summary judgment in employment discrimination context)
- Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (elements of a prima facie failure-to-promote claim)
- Mauro v. S. New England Telecomms., Inc., 208 F.3d 384 (ADEA application of McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass'n, 182 F.3d 157 (summary judgment inference and construction of facts for non-movant)
- Henry v. Daytop Vill., Inc., 42 F.3d 89 (showing falsity of employer’s reason as central to pretext)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer’s burden and discretion among equally qualified candidates)