207 F. Supp. 3d 80
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiff Sederis Fields, an African American woman and long‑time USDA GS‑13 employee, previously sued USDA (trial resulted in JMOL for USDA) in related discrimination litigation where supervisor John Chott was a key witness.
- Fields was detailed June 2009–Feb 2011 to the Civil Rights Task Force; her detail supervisor (Womack) gave an “Outstanding” FY2009 rating, but a separate appraisal signed by Chott reflected a lower “Superior” rating.
- Fields alleges she only learned on March 31, 2010 that Chott’s “Superior” rating would be the agency’s rating of record and initiated EEO counseling that day; USDA contends she knew earlier and missed the 45‑day window.
- Additional alleged acts: Chott allegedly tried to coerce Fields into signing a second 2010 performance plan (which was never implemented), threatened to take her office space (rescinded), slammed his office door after a March 31, 2010 meeting, and reassigned a GS‑14 position to Barbara Boyd (white) by non‑competitive placement.
- Procedural posture: USDA moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; Fields moved for Rule 56(d) discovery. Court granted discovery, denied summary judgment without prejudice in part, dismissed some claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion of FY2009 appraisal claim | Fields says she timely contacted EEO on March 31, 2010 because she only then learned Chott’s rating was the official rating of record | USDA says Fields signed the appraisal in Nov. 2009 and missed the 45‑day counseling window | Disputed fact; pleadings and Fields’ declaration create genuine issue and discovery granted — exhaustion defense denied at this stage |
| Legitimacy of FY2009 "Superior" rating (discrimination/retaliation) | Fields argues disparate treatment: only detailed employee whose rating was lowered and deviation from policy suggests pretext | USDA proffers non‑discriminatory reason (Chott’s assessment that Fields was a weaker performer) | Pretext issue unresolved; summary judgment premature; Rule 56(d) discovery granted |
| 2010 performance plan / office eviction threat as adverse action | Fields alleges coercion to sign plan and demand to vacate office | USDA notes plan was never signed or implemented and threat rescinded, so no tangible or actionable harm | Court: no adverse action shown; claims based on these incidents dismissed |
| Hostile work environment (race/sex/retaliation) | Fields cites multiple incidents (downgraded evaluations, office threats, slammed door) as a hostile atmosphere | USDA contends incidents are ordinary workplace disputes, not severe or pervasive harassment | Dismissed: incidents are isolated or non‑extreme; do not meet severe/pervasive standard for hostile work environment |
| Failure to promote / non‑competitive reassignment to GS‑14 | Fields says Boyd was placed non‑competitively to deny her promotion in retaliation/discrimination | USDA offers legitimate reasons (Boyd’s experience, imminent hiring freeze) | Court: factual dispute; summary judgment premature and discovery into reassignment permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (pleading standard and construing complaint in plaintiff’s favor)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment — genuine dispute and inferences)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation adverse‑action standard and reasonable‑worker test)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment severe or pervasive standard)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile work environment recognized under Title VII)
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Rule 56(d) discovery should be granted absent lack of diligence)