Herbert v. Architect of the Capitol
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17422
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Herbert, African American, employed in the Architect of the Capitol Paint Shop.
- He challenges three AOC actions: a letter of reprimand (proposed Jan 2007, finalized May–June 2007), a promotion delay to W-9 Painter, and an internal investigation ending in a draft report.
- Settlement agreement July 6, 2006 released claims from internal complaints; it required promotion to W-9 by Feb 17, 2007 if Herbert’s 2006 rating was fully successful or above.
- Promotion to W-9 Painter became effective February 4, 2007 under the settlement timeline; the AOC complied with the agreed timeframe.
- AOC later took disciplinary actions and conducted an internal investigation amid and after Herbert’s 2005–2006 EEO-CP complaints, including a December 2006 inquiry by Employee Relations.
- The court grants summary judgment for the AOC, concluding Herbert failed to show a materially adverse action or pretextual reasons for the challenged actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letter of reprimand constitutes a materially adverse action. | Herbert claims the reprimand was adverse and discriminatory/retaliatory. | The reprimand is bland, non-final, expunged after a year, and not materially adverse under controlling precedents. | No; not materially adverse. |
| Whether the delay in Herbert's promotion was materially adverse. | Delay and anticipated adverse impact on promotion opportunities. | Promotion occurred per the settlement timeline; no evidence of intended pre-promotion harmful impact. | No; no material adversity. |
| Whether the internal investigation was a materially adverse action. | Investigation targeted Herbert and damaged employment | Investigation focused on broader Paint Shop issues and lacked tangible impact on Herbert. | No; not materially adverse. |
| Whether the AOC's reasons for the reprimand and promotion were pretextual. | Defendant’s stated reasons conceal discriminatory/retaliatory intent. | Reasons were honestly believed and supported by the evidence; pretext not shown. | No; no plausible pretext shown for two actions; settlement terms and timing align with non-pretextual reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (letter of reprimand not always adverse; context-specific material adversity standards)
- Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, L.P., 131 S.Ct. 863 (U.S. 2011) (retaliation standard requires material adversity to deter protected activity)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (central question whether employer's non-discriminatory reasons are pretextual)
- Calhoun v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (analysis of pretext and discrimination in Title VII/CAA contexts)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (defining material adversity for retaliation)