Fennell v. AARP
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26969
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Fennell, a 53-year-old black male, was employed by AARP for about 22 years and was terminated in March 2009.
- AARP had an unwritten policy allowing personal print requests up to 1,000 copies with supervisor approval; this policy was known to Fennell's superiors and used routinely.
- In 2009, during an internal investigation, Fennell was told to reimburse AARP $15,000 for personal print copies, but signed a Restitution Agreement for $5,000 under alleged duress and misrepresentation.
- AARP initially framed the termination as a reduction-in-force, later changing the stated reason to use of print services for personal purposes and revoking severance.
- Fennell alleges selective treatment of similarly situated white employees who used print services for personal purposes and denies the asserted $15,000 amount.
- Fennell filed suit October 20, 2009 alleging Title VII race and sex discrimination; he later filed an EEOC charge December 23, 2009 and received a right-to-sue letter January 22, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fennell exhausted administrative remedies | Fennell's claim is timely due to later EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter. | Exhaustion was not shown at filing; procedural defect. | Exhaustion excused; later EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter moot the issue. |
| Whether Fennell pleads plausible race discrimination | Pleadings show pretext, perfomed by disparate treatment and inconsistent explanations. | Plaintiff failed to plead a prima facie case or show discrimination. | Fennell pleads a plausible race-based discrimination claim; not dismissed. |
| Whether Fennell pleads plausible sex discrimination | Discrimination based on sex is alleged via pretext and comparative treatment. | No explicit sex-discrimination pleadings. | Plaintiff pleads plausible sex-based discrimination; claim survives. |
| Whether Fennell pleads age discrimination (ADEA) | ADEA basis identified in opposition/charge; age 53 within protected class. | Title VII focus; age claim not clearly pleaded. | Age discrimination claim adequately pleaded and deemed viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibilityrequires more than mere speculation)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (prima facie case not required at pleading stage)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discrimination claims standards; pleading sufficiency)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (recognizes pleading and discovery role in discrimination cases)
- Artis v. Bernanke, 630 F.3d 1031 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (exhaustion principles and equitable tolling in Title VII context)