Hovsepyan v. Blaya
770 F. Supp. 2d 259
D.D.C.2011Background
- Hovsepyan worked for VOA Armenian Service from 1993 to 2007 as a GS-12 broadcaster.
- He was 57 at termination and claimed disability from a prior massive heart attack.
- VOA/Broadcasting Board of Governors terminated him on June 27, 2007 after a 30-day performance improvement period.
- The Board’s decision focused on performance in producing original TV feature stories, not his age or disability.
- Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on age and disability and retaliatory firing for EEO/whistleblower activity; Board moved to dismiss or grant summary judgment; court granted partial dismissal, awarded counsel for surviving retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPA jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim. | Hovsepyan asserts WPA claim survives. | Board argues MSPB/CSRA exclusive jurisdiction. | WPA claim dismissed for lack of CSRA jurisdiction. |
| Disability discrimination under Rehabilitation Act. | Plaintiff claims disability and failure to accommodate. | Board entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Disability discrimination claim dismissed; no genuine dispute of material fact. |
| Age discrimination under ADEA. | Termination was due to age 57. | Decision based on performance; age not a motivating factor. | ADEA claim dismissed; no reasonable jury could find age as the motive. |
| Retaliation for EEO/whistleblower activity. | Termination linked to protected activity. | Proffered non-discriminatory reasons supported by record. | Retaliation claim survives to be amended with counsel; petitioner granted counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for proving discrimination shifts burden)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (U.S. 2003) (pretext and shifting burdens after legitimate reason)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework after showing legitimate reason)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (evidence required to defeat summary judgment on discrimination)
- Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (limits of court reexamination of personnel decisions)