Francis v. Solis, 970 F. Supp. 2d 48

Background

Jean Francis, a Seventh-Day Adventist, was GS-15 Chief of the Budget Branch at DOL's ESA from June 2007 to June 2009; the vacancy noted "long work hours."
On June 25, 2007 Francis informed supervisors she could not work from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset for Sabbath observance; supervisors said this would interfere with supervisory duties.
Over 2007–2009 supervisors documented performance concerns (FY2007–2008 reviews, Feb. 2008 memorandum, May 2008 mid-term review) and in March 2009 placed Francis on a 90-day PIP.
While on the PIP Francis was denied a within-grade pay increase (May 2009); after failing to show required improvement she was reassigned in June 2009 from a supervisory GS-15 position to a non-supervisory Special Assistant GS-15 role.
Francis filed an EEOC complaint (Oct. 2009) and sued under Title VII alleging failure to accommodate religion, religious discrimination, and retaliation; national-origin claim later withdrawn.
District Court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, finding (1) accommodation claim failed because Francis never missed work after her accommodation request, (2) discrimination claim lacked evidence of discriminatory motive beyond stray remarks and disputed performance assessments, and (3) retaliation claim lacked causation/protected-activity evidence beyond temporal proximity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Failure to reasonably accommodate religious observance	Francis says she requested Fridays (after sunset)–Saturdays off and was denied; adverse actions followed	DOL argues Francis never failed to comply with work requirements after denial and thus suffered no adverse consequence from denial	Denied — accommodation claim fails because Francis produced no evidence she missed required work after request or was disciplined for doing so
2) Religious discrimination	Adverse actions (memoranda, PIP, denial of raise, reassignment) were motivated by anti-religious animus	DOL proffers legitimate non-discriminatory reason: poor job performance documented over time	Denied — Court finds DOL’s nondiscriminatory explanations credible; plaintiff’s evidence limited to stray remarks and disagreement with performance assessments, insufficient to show pretext
3) Whether performance documents (reviews, memos) are adverse actions	Francis treats evaluations/memos as adverse acts supporting discrimination/retaliation claims	DOL contends many are non-actionable because they caused no objective/financial harm	Held in part — routine evaluations/memos not adverse absent tangible harm; PIP+denial of raise and reassignment are adverse (denial of pay and loss of supervisory duties)
4) Retaliation for complaints/responses	Francis asserts she complained (to a deputy) and opposed PIP; thereafter suffered PIP, denial of raise, reassignment	DOL says actions were performance-based and plaintiff’s complaints were not shown to be protected or causally connected	Denied — retaliation fails for lack of evidence that plaintiff engaged in protected opposition alleging discrimination and lack of but-for causation (temporal proximity alone insufficient)

Key Cases Cited

Trans World Airlines, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (employer must reasonably accommodate religious practices unless undue hardship)
Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (1986) (Congress did not impose accommodation at all costs)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (plaintiff may defeat summary judgment by showing employer’s reason is pretext)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (focus on whether evidence permits finding employer’s nondiscriminatory reason is unworthy of credence)
Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (elements of adverse action and discrimination analysis)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation prohibits employer actions that might dissuade a reasonable worker)
Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)