Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51834

Background

Grosdidier is a white female international broadcaster for VOA's French to Africa Service, GS-12, employed since 1987 under the BBG.
Dia, the Service Chief, initially led the selection process for a GS-13 multi-media Senior Editor position and formed a three-person panel.
The panel interviewed six candidates; Donangmaye (Black, Chadian origin) was ultimately selected over Grosdidier and Jaafar; panel scores followed after Dia instructed scoring.
Grosdidier filed EEO complaints historically in 2002 and later challenged the 2006 nonselection as discriminatory on sex, race, national origin, and reprisal grounds.
From 2004–2005 Grosdidier complained about a sexually charged workplace; Dia warned about professional conduct but denied discriminatory intent.
In 2006-2008, Grosdidier alleged changes in duties, including reduced editing/website duties, and later received a letter of admonition in 2008; she pursued a second EEO complaint beginning in 2007.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Grosdidier’s nonselection for promotion discriminatory or retaliatory?	Grosdidier argues race/sex/origin and prior EEO activity biased the decision.	Donangmaye selected on merit; Grosdidier not sufficiently qualified; no pretext shown.	Summary judgment for BBG on discrimination/retaliation; no triable issue on pretext
Did Grosdidier exhaust administrative remedies for discrimination/retaliation claims?	Certain post-2002 claims related to 2004–2005 conduct should be considered exhausted.	Only claims within the formal complaints or reasonably related to them are exhausted.	Exhaustion denied for most claims; only timely exhausted claims related to post-2007 actions allowed
Did a reduction of duties constitute an adverse employment action?	Reduction in editing/hosting duties post-2007 was a retaliatory adverse action.	Duty changes were ad hoc and not a material adverse action; not plainly retaliatory.	Summary judgment denied for retaliation; question for jury on post-2007 duty reductions
Was Grosdidier’s hostile work environment claim exhausted and actionable?	Sexual conduct in 2004–2005 created a hostile environment; timely and actionable.	2004–2005 incidents were not severe or pervasive; not actionable; not exhausted as to pre-2007 acts.	Hostile environment claim not exhausted to the 2005 acts and not actionable under Title VII
Were destroyed interview notes and panel conduct probative of discrimination/retaliation?	Destruction of notes by two panelists supports inference of bias.	No evidence of bad faith; destruction not conclusive; jury could still infer merit-based decision.	Adverse inference denied; not sufficient to prove discrimination; can be probative but not dispositive

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (discusses materially adverse actions in retaliation context)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (prohibits harassment based on sex unless not severe or pervasive)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (hostile environment standards require severe or pervasive conduct)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (standard for hostile work environment pervasiveness)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext and mixed evidence evaluation on summary judgment)
Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc; pretext and discrimination in Title VII)
Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (claims must be like or reasonably related to EEOC charge)
Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (retaliation framework and jury evaluation of evidence)
George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (good faith, reasonable belief required for opposition clause)