Harris v. McDonald
Civil Action No. 2017-0594
| D.D.C. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Herbert C. Harris III, a part-time WG-1 food-service worker at the VA, alleged sex discrimination (men assigned dishwashing more than women), retaliation (assigned unpleasant cleaning duties after complaining), failure to promote/compensate, and that an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) improperly granted summary judgment without a hearing.
- WG-1 duties explicitly include dishwashing and other cleaning tasks; during the relevant period 29 men and 3 women had dishwashing duties (one woman unable to wash pots due to disability).
- Harris filed informal and formal EEO complaints in October–December 2007; the AJ granted the Agency’s motion for decision without a hearing in January 2009 after Harris did not oppose; the EEOC affirmed the AJ on de novo review in December 2016.
- Harris filed this pro se civil action in March 2017 repeating his EEO claims. The VA moved for summary judgment; Harris did not oppose the motion in district court.
- The Court treated the Agency’s uncontested factual assertions as true, reviewed the record independently, and resolved whether any material fact issue would preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination (Title VII) | Men were made to wash pots/pans more than women; unequal assignment shows sex discrimination | Dishwashing and cleaning are part of WG-1 duties; statistical makeup (29 men, 3 women) explains disparity; employer gave legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | Granted summary judgment for Defendant — no adverse action shown and no evidence of pretext |
| Retaliation | After EEO complaint, supervisors assigned Harris unpleasant cleaning tasks and sent him alone to clean nursing home as punishment | Assignments were within WG-1 duties; VA also cites need for extra cleaning due to surveys; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons given | Granted summary judgment for Defendant — plaintiff failed to show supervisors knew of protected activity or otherwise prove retaliatory intent |
| Failure to promote / unpaid higher-grade work | Harris trained incoming employees who were promoted to WG-2 while he stayed WG-1 and was not compensated for higher-grade duties | No specifics on who promoted whom or when; WG-1 position permits temporary higher-graded duties; no evidence supervisors knew of EEO activity | Granted summary judgment for Defendant — plaintiff provided no evidence/details to support claim |
| Claim that AJ erred by issuing decision without hearing | AJ decided without hearing, depriving Harris of being heard on material facts | AJ properly granted decision without hearing after Harris failed to oppose; regulation permits decision without hearing when no material fact is at issue | Granted summary judgment for Defendant — administrative process challenge not cognizable under Title VII/APA/Due Process and AJ acted within rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard requires no genuine dispute of material fact)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (focus on whether employee produced evidence that employer’s asserted non-discriminatory reason was pretext)
- Desmond v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 944 (plaintiff must present sufficient evidence that employer’s explanation is unworthy of credence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (non-movant must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (definition of a genuine dispute of material fact)
- Morris v. McCarthy, 825 F.3d 658 (retaliation requires proof supervisors knew of protected activity)