Dyer v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc.
264 F. Supp. 3d 208
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brett F. Dyer worked as a Sous Chef at McCormick & Schmick’s (M&S), later acquired by Landry’s, from 2005–2013; he sought promotion to Executive Chef but never submitted formal online applications and received several progressively poor performance reviews and warnings.
- Dyer filed multiple EEO complaints (April 2011; April 25, 2013; May 31, 2013; June 8, 2013) alleging race discrimination and related problems; the D.C. Grill where he worked closed in May 2013 and M&S/Landry’s terminated Dyer instead of transferring him while transferring other on-site managers.
- After termination, Dyer pursued employment with Gordon Biersch, which extended then rescinded an offer in July 2013; defendants say the offer was withdrawn because Dyer misrepresented his employment history, while Dyer claims an anonymous/email reference from M&S/Landry’s called him a “troublemaker.”
- At summary judgment, defendants moved to dismiss (1) non-promotion claims, (2) termination claims, and (3) post-termination retaliation/reference claims; the court evaluated the credibility and admissibility of evidence and whether pretext could be inferred.
- Court concluded: grant summary judgment to M&S/Landry’s on non-promotion claims (§ 1981) and on the post-termination claims against M&S/Landry’s and Gordon Biersch; deny summary judgment to M&S/Landry’s on the discriminatory/retaliatory termination claim (DCHRA) because issues of pretext and temporal proximity to protected activity exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to promote (May 2010–May 2013) was racially discriminatory under § 1981/DCHRA | Dyer: informal/repeated oral expressions of interest functioned as standing applications; promotions passed over him because of race | M&S: internal employees had to submit formal applications; even if considered, Dyer was unqualified based on repeated poor reviews and PIP | Court: Grant for defendants — genuine dispute over formal-application policy but undisputed, non-pretextual evidence of poor performance defeats claim; plaintiff must rebut all legitimate reasons |
| Whether termination at restaurant closure was discriminatory/retaliatory (DCHRA) | Dyer: termination followed closely after EEO complaint (April 2013) and other managers were transferred while he alone was fired — defendants’ stated lack-of-vacancy reason is pretextual | M&S/Landry’s: closure of the D.C. Grill necessitated decisions; there were no suitable Sous Chef vacancies to transfer Dyer into | Court: Deny summary judgment — a reasonable jury could find the asserted reason false and infer discrimination/retaliation, especially given timing and inconsistent explanations |
| Whether Gordon Biersch’s rescission of offer was retaliatory (DCHRA) | Dyer: Gordon Biersch received an anonymous email labeling him a “troublemaker” (sent by M&S/Landry’s) and rescinded offer because of his prior EEO complaints | Gordon Biersch: rescinded because Dyer misrepresented employment history; no evidence decisionmakers knew of his EEO complaints | Court: Grant for Gordon Biersch — plaintiff produced no admissible evidence that decisionmakers knew of his protected activity; anonymous email insufficient to prove knowledge |
| Whether M&S/Landry’s gave a false negative reference to Gordon Biersch (post-termination retaliation) | Dyer: M&S/Landry’s employees communicated negatively about him (via unnamed sources/email), inducing rescission | M&S/Landry’s: no admissible evidence of any company-authored negative reference; hearsay; no conspiracy shown | Court: Grant for M&S/Landry’s — key statements inadmissible hearsay and no admissible evidence links alleged communications to the company as an entity |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (false employer explanation may allow jury to infer discriminatory intent)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (court should decide ultimate question of pretext rather than prima facie case)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (plaintiff must show employer’s stated reason was not honestly held)
- DeJesus v. WP Co. LLC, 841 F.3d 527 (reasonableness of employer’s belief can bear on pretext)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (temporal proximity can support inference of retaliation)