Gladden v. Solis
926 F. Supp. 2d 147
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Warren Gladden, proceeding pro se, sues Hilda Solis alleging race, age, and retaliation claims under Title VII and the ADEA after DOL rejected his application for a Program Specialist, G-14.
- The hiring process involved a computer-scored evaluation followed by an individualized HR review; plaintiff’s score qualified him for review but the HR reviewer found he did not meet the minimum specialized experience requirement.
- The specialized experience required “one year of specialized experience in researching and analyzing factual and/or legal issues arising from investigations and enforcement activities…” and the reviewer found plaintiff’s experience limited to one personal discriminatory case.
- The HR specialist excluded plaintiff from the five-person eligible candidate list; the list included two African-American men and two applicants older than plaintiff; the eventual hire was an African-American male, one year older than plaintiff.
- Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with DOL; the Final Agency Decision on July 9, 2010 concluded there was no discrimination or retaliation.
- Plaintiff’s case was initially dismissed for failure to exhaust (June 14, 2011) and reinstated (Nov. 16, 2012); this motion to dismiss followed (Nov. 9, 2012).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination: whether plaintiff plausibly shows race or age discrimination | Gladden argues the hiring process and record-keeping flaws imply discrimination | Discrimination not plausibly inferred from process flaws; no discriminatory animus shown | Dismissed |
| Retaliation: whether plaintiff plausibly shows retaliation for prior EEO activity | Prior EEO activity and its inclusion on the application imply retaliation | Two facts alone do not show retaliation; no causal link shown | Dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (two elements of discrimination claims; need plausible inference of discrimination)
- Kempthorne v. DOE, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (retaliation requires adverse action because of protected activity)
- EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (judicial notice and treatment of factual allegations in Rule 12(b)(6) context)