Greg Burley v. National Passenger Rail Corp.
419 U.S. App. D.C. 313
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Gregory Burley, an African-American Amtrak engineer at Ivy City yard, drove an engine over an applied derailer after passing what Amtrak concluded was a displayed blue signal; the engine derailed, no injuries occurred, limited property damage.
- Blue-signal violations are treated by Amtrak as extremely serious because they protect track workers; derailers force an engine off the track if a displayed blue signal is ignored.
- Leslie Smith (white), senior supervisor, led the incident committee, photographed a bent blue flag and detached flashing light under the engine, concluded a blue signal had been properly displayed and that Burley violated rules.
- Conductor Jerry Ebersole (white) left the engine before the derailment; Burley later testified he was unaware Ebersole had exited and did not see a blue signal or illuminated blue lights. Smith did not record or testify that Burley lacked that knowledge.
- Amtrak denied Burley’s waiver request, held a formal hearing, and General Superintendent Daryl Pesce (unaware of Burley’s race) terminated Burley and suspended his engineer certificate for 30 days; later administrative bodies partially reversed some discipline but Burley sued for racial discrimination under Title VII and the DCHRA.
- The district court granted Amtrak summary judgment; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding the record could not support a reasonable jury finding that race motivated Amtrak’s adverse actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amtrak’s investigation and factual findings were so flawed as to be pretext for racial discrimination | Smith’s report misstated physical evidence and ignored exculpatory facts (e.g., Burley’s lack of notice that Ebersole left), showing pretext | Investigation found bent blue flag/light and witness statements supporting a displayed blue signal; discipline based on safety rules, not race | Held for Amtrak — differences in factual inferences (including Burley’s testimony) do not, without more, show investigatory error so extreme as to imply racial motive |
| Whether Smith’s omission of Ebersole’s departure in his report supports an inference of racial bias (cat’s paw theory) | Smith intentionally omitted that Burley was unaware Ebersole left, indicating discriminatory animus that infected later decisionmakers | Smith did not know Burley was unaware; Ebersole did not tell Smith; no evidence Smith knew or intentionally withheld that fact | Held for Amtrak — no evidence Smith knew the omitted fact, so omission cannot be imputed to racial animus |
| Whether failure to obtain or preserve security videotape warrants an adverse inference or shows an unfair investigation | Amtrak erased or failed to review tapes; spoliation and investigatory incompleteness support inference of discrimination | Existence/location/contents of any tape are speculative; Burley failed to depose video custodian or identify material facts the video would have shown; even a video likely wouldn’t show what Burley knew | Held for Amtrak — no proof tapes existed or that video would have revealed materially exculpatory information; no spoliation inference warranted |
| Whether comparator evidence (Ebersole and white engineers) shows disparate treatment and raises an inference of racial discrimination | White employees received more lenient discipline for comparable or worse infractions, showing discriminatory disparate treatment | Comparators were not similarly situated: different roles, different offenses, different supervisors; decisionmakers (Pesce/Sherlock) were unaware of Burley’s race | Held for Amtrak — comparators not sufficiently similar and decisionmakers lacked knowledge of Burley’s race; comparator evidence fails to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden on nonmoving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and reasonable jury standard at summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (assigning burden and inference framework in discrimination cases)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (pretext and comparator evidence in Title VII context)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s paw liability standard)
- Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843 (when flawed investigation can indicate pretext)
- Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180 (egregious factual error can support inference of unlawful motive)
- Barnett v. PA Consulting Grp., 715 F.3d 354 (proof-of-pretext standard in discrimination suits)
- Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255 (requirements for similarly situated comparator evidence)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (factors for comparator analysis)
- Gerlich v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 711 F.3d 161 (standards for spoliation/inference from destroyed evidence)