Gary Hamilton v. Timothy Geithner
399 U.S. App. D.C. 77
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Hamilton, an African American IRS industrial hygienist, alleges race/gender discrimination in a GS-14 promotion denied to him in favor of Burrell and retaliation regarding his EEO activity.
- Plaintiff contends Burrell, a less-qualified white female, was selected over him for the Safety Manager position based on discriminatory motives, with a questionable, highly subjective process.
- Hamilton also claims that Burrell received a temporary detail that aided her qualification, and that Carraway’s 2004 detail was retaliation for his EEO filing.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the discriminatory-promotion and retaliation claims, and dismissed the 2002 detail claim for lack of exhaustion.
- Hamilton appeals the summary judgment rulings, challenging the pretext and causal inferences, and requesting trial on the disputed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2002 detail claim exhausted? | Hamilton exhausted via EEO counseling. | Detail claim not included in formal complaint; no exhaustion. | Detail claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Did the IRS's proffered reason for Burrell over Hamilton constitute pretext for discrimination? | Hamilton’s qualifications and subjective process show pretext. | Burrell’s interview performance justified; no pretext. | Summary judgment reversed; triable issue of pretext and discrimination. |
| Did the 2004 Carraway detail constitute retaliation for EEO activity? | Temporal proximity supports causation; Burns’ conduct shows antagonism. | Non-retaliatory explanation exists; proximity insufficient. | Remanded to determine if pretext for retaliation; prima facie shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (consideration of qualifications and other flaws in explanation to infer pretext)
- Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (U.S. 2006) (qualifications evidence may show pretext; framework for comparing qualifications)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (great disparity in qualifications can support discrimination inference)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext framework; total circumstances analysis)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext and burden-shifting framework)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (retaliation proximity can support causation; pretext remand may apply)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (no bright-line rule for temporal proximity in retaliation)