Hornsby v. Watt
217 F. Supp. 3d 58
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Hornsby was hired as FHFA Chief Operating Officer in December 2011 and received high ratings and bonuses in 2012; performance rating dropped in 2013 after tensions with then-Acting Director DeMarco.
- In April 2014 Hornsby (as EEO settlement officer) settled a subordinate’s EEO retaliation complaint; shortly thereafter HR head Risinger reported that Hornsby had made violent threats against DeMarco.
- On April 28, 2014 FHFA placed Hornsby on paid administrative leave, OIG interviewed and arrested him; criminal charges were later reduced to misdemeanors and Hornsby was acquitted at a November 2014 bench trial.
- FHFA did not immediately reinstate Hornsby; on December 19, 2014 FHFA issued a Notice of Proposal to Remove listing multiple misconduct allegations; Hornsby was ultimately removed effective March 21, 2015.
- Hornsby filed this Title VII retaliation suit in March 2016 challenging only the failure to reinstate after acquittal and the Proposal to Remove; MSPB appeal of the removal remains pending.
- The Court considered the Complaint and incorporated documents, and evaluated the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues and Key Positions
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FHFA's failure to reinstate Hornsby immediately after acquittal was a "materially adverse" action for Title VII retaliation | Hornsby: the short extension of paid leave (29 days) after acquittal, in context, was sufficiently harmful to deter a reasonable worker and thus materially adverse | FHFA: continuing paid administrative leave pending agency investigation cannot be materially adverse because Hornsby suffered no objectively tangible harm | Court: Not materially adverse — paid leave produced no objectively tangible harm; 29-day extension reasonable given agency’s continuing investigation |
| Whether issuance of the December 19, 2014 Proposal to Remove was a materially adverse action | Hornsby: the Proposal, when viewed with surrounding events, had materially adverse consequences that would deter protected activity | FHFA: a Proposal to Remove is merely procedural notice and causes no tangible harm until finalized | Court: Proposal to Remove not materially adverse — no tangible harm resulted while it remained a proposal; the real injury (final removal) is before MSPB, not this court |
| Whether Hornsby pleaded a plausible Title VII retaliation claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6) | Hornsby: alleges protected activity (settling subordinate’s claim) and subsequent adverse acts by FHFA supporting retaliation inference | FHFA: plaintiff fails to allege any materially adverse actions or facts showing objective harm or causal link sufficient to state a plausible claim | Court: Complaint dismissed for failure to allege materially adverse actions; cannot infer Title VII retaliation liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir.) (court accepts plaintiff’s factual allegations as true at motion to dismiss stage)
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) (consideration of documents incorporated into complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for plausible claims)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation context)
- Bridgeforth v. Jewell, 721 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir.) (retaliation requires objectively tangible harm)
- Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.) (failure to immediately reinstate on paid leave after criminal dismissal is not adverse where employer reasonably pursues investigation)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir.) (a proposed disciplinary action does not itself effect a tangible adverse employment action)