Janean Chambers v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell
422 U.S. App. D.C. 423
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Janean Chambers, a legally blind African-American HHS employee, worked as a GS-9 Section 508 Coordinator at ACF and sought promotion to GS-11 from 2007 onward.
- Her immediate supervisor, Michael Curtis (Director of OIS), supported a promotion but lacked authority to create new positions; creation required higher-level approval.
- Chambers alleges Curtis failed to request creation of a GS-11 position for her; Curtis told her he had asked Deputy Assistant Secretary Jason Donaldson, who refused for budgetary/management-priority reasons.
- Chambers filed an internal EEO complaint in Oct. 2011 and agreed to an expedited desk audit, which found her position properly graded at GS-9; she then sued under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act claiming race and disability discrimination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for HHS, reasoning an adverse action requires an actual vacancy or authority to create it; the D.C. Circuit affirms on the ground that Chambers failed to produce evidence of discriminatory motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the failure to request creation of a new position can be a cognizable adverse employment action | Chambers: supervisor’s omission to seek a new GS-11 vacancy denied her promotion (adverse action) | Government: denial of promotion is cognizable only if a vacancy existed | Court: A supervisor’s refusal to seek an upgraded vacancy can be an adverse action in appropriate circumstances; no categorical vacancy rule applies |
| Whether Chambers produced evidence that Curtis failed to request the position | Chambers: Curtis didn’t request or followed half-heartedly; inconsistencies in explanations and no paperwork | HHS: Curtis testified he did request it; Donaldson corroborated; Curtis consistently supported Chambers | Held: Evidence shows Curtis did request the position; Chambers’ contrary evidence is merely speculative |
| Whether the ultimate decisionmakers acted because of Chambers’s race or disability | Chambers: Donaldson’s refusal and agency’s creation of other positions for white/sighted employees infer discrimination | HHS: Donaldson did not know request was for Chambers; budget/priority reasons explain denial; later positions may reflect changed circumstances | Held: No admissible evidence links decisionmakers’ conduct to discriminatory motive; Chambers failed to show causation |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Chambers: factual disputes exist about motive and process | HHS: record lacks probative evidence of discriminatory intent; summary judgment proper | Held: Affirmed — summary judgment for HHS because plaintiff failed to raise genuine issue on discrimination element |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (de novo review of summary judgment and scope of appellate affirmance)
- Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standards and inferences at summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (circumstantial evidence and jury inferences in discrimination cases)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (adverse employment action requirement under Title VII and Rehabilitation Act)
- Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (materially adverse employment action standard)
- Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (denial of promotion claims include vacant-position and pay/grade-increase theories)
- Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (promotion/grade increase can be adverse action)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for assessing discrimination claims and tailoring proof to circumstances)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment requires evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party)