Duru v. Dist. of Columbia, 303 F. Supp. 3d 63

Duru, a Nigerian-born longtime DYRS Youth Development Representative (YDR), was terminated after two serious incidents in December 2011 and a disciplinary record of five infractions in three years.
December 13 and December 15, 2011 incidents: residents climbed into ceilings and multiple assaults occurred; investigations and incident reports were prepared and security footage reviewed.
DYRS relied on progressive discipline and past three years of record when proposing removal; Baynes and HR testified termination stemmed from the December incidents plus Duru's prior infractions.
OEA reversed the termination, finding DYRS had not proved Duru violated the eyes-on-supervision policy on December 15; Duru was reinstated with back pay and fees.
Duru sued the District alleging national-origin discrimination under Title VII, DCHRA, and § 1981; District moved for summary judgment.
District Court granted summary judgment for the District, holding plaintiff failed to show the proffered nondiscriminatory reason was pretext for national-origin discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination	Duru: he did not violate policy; District "created" incidents and disciplining was wrongful	District: termination resulted from two serious December 2011 incidents plus five infractions in three years; legitimate safety/discipline reason	Held: District provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and reasonably believed it at the time
Whether that reason was pretext for national-origin discrimination	Duru: District's stated reasons were false; disparate treatment of American-born comparators (esp. Brown) and unrecorded Brown infractions show pretext	District: investigations were conducted; Brown not similarly situated due to different disciplinary histories; alleged unrecorded incidents unsubstantiated	Held: Duru failed to show pretext or that comparators were similarly situated; summary judgment for District

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard and inferences for nonmovant)
Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext may be shown by proving employer's explanation unworthy of credence)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. — employer must honestly believe its reasons)
Burley v. Nat'l Passenger Rail Corp., 801 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. — reasonableness of employer belief; comparator analysis)
Fischbach v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. — courts should not second-guess employer absent demonstrable discrimination)
Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. — prima facie elements and legitimacy of discipline)