Glass v. LaHood
786 F. Supp. 2d 189
D.D.C.2011Background
- Glass, an African American female, sues the Secretary of Transportation under Title VII alleging non-selection (June/August 2007) and a failed October 2007 promotion at the NHTSA.
- Glass held a GS-13 Safety Defects Engineer role; the position at issue was the Director of the Correspondence Research Division (CRD).
- Merit Promotion Plan governs promotions to GS-15 and below; career ladder tops out at GS-13 for Glass’s track, with GS-14 as a separate “expert” level.
- DeMeter (CRD director) was the recommending official; Medford was the selecting official; Fields (African American) ultimately was selected over Rosen for the CRD director role.
- Scores: Fields 98.07, Rosen 96.40, Bell 93.57, Glass 90.35, Downs 88.69; Fields’ higher score partly due to veterans’ preference.
- Glass failed to exhaust or timely file EEO complaints for some earlier 2003–2006 non-promotions and later claims were not properly pleaded or exhausted under LCvR 7(h)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-selection was pretext for discrimination | Glass alleges race/sex bias in Fields’s selection over her. | NHTSA relied on Fields’s superior qualifications and a merit-based process; no substantial qualification gap showing pretext. | No genuine dispute; reasons were non-pretextual and properly supported. |
| Whether Glass’s 2007 failure-to-promote claim is actionable | Glass contends race-based discrimination and retaliation for protected activity. | Glass faced no open GS-14 position; promotion denied based on performance at GS-13; not pretextual. | Summary judgment for NHTSA; no triable issue on pretext or prima facie case given record. |
| Whether Glass exhausted administrative remedies for claims | Glass exhausted some claims; claims pre-2007 and others were not properly pleaded. | Late/untimely or non-pleaded claims are barred; EEO timelines not satisfied. | Glass exhausted only timely, related claims; others foreclosed. |
| Whether discovery-based allegations could defeat summary judgment | Glass points to Jones declaration and other materials as proof of discrimination. | Evidence is conclusory, hearsay, or not properly tied to the challenged decision. | Insufficient competent record support; claims dismissed. |
| Whether the record supports a finding of pretext for the promotion decision | Glass claims supervisors’ biased judgments and changing behavior. | supervisors’ evaluations were reasonable; Glass’s own views are not enough. | No reasonable fact-finder could conclude pretext; performance evidence upholds denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milton v. Weinberger, 696 F.2d 94 (D.C.Cir. 1982) (courts defer to employer’s personnel decisions absent discriminatory motive)
- Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (great qualifications gap needed to infer discrimination)
- Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (stark superiority of credentials required for discrimination inference)
- Fischbach v. D.C. Dep't of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (pretext requires more than conclusory assertions)
- Green v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (rejects basing decision solely on imprudent or unfair action)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (plaintiff must file discrete acts within the administrative process)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (central question is whether employer’s reasons are pretextual)
- Calhoun v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 1259 (D.C.Cir. 2011) (pretext analysis in discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1088 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (prima facie burden for failure-to-promote requires an available position)
- Yarber-Butler v. Billington, 53 Fed.Appx. 120 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (timing and open-position requirements for failure-to-promote claims)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (evidence requirements for discrimination claims; not all reliance on prior complaints)
- Breeden v. Clark, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity issues in retaliation cases)
- Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (courts require objective evidence beyond self-serving claims)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (courts do not reevaluate business decisions absent discrimination)
- Carney v. American Univ., 151 F.3d 1090 (D.C.Cir. 1998) (nonmovant bears burden to produce affirmative evidence of genuine dispute)
- Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity; not dispositive where preexisting plan was in motion)