Janet Allen v. Jeh Johnson
417 App. D.C. 297
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Allen settled Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against DHS and was assigned to supervise ICE internal controls under Hill.
- Hill gave Allen 2008 performance ratings with lower marks than Allen believed warranted; Allen claims ratings were retaliatory.
- Allen was allegedly excluded from certain meetings, though Hill contends exclusions were justified by roles and meeting relevance.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Department, finding Hill’s reasons non-retaliatory and not pretextual.
- On appeal, the court reviews de novo whether the Department’s asserted reasons could support a jury finding of retaliation.
- Court concludes Allen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that Hill’s reasons were pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a materially adverse action in retaliation claim? | Allen argues performance ratings and meeting exclusions were retaliatory. | Department asserts ratings and exclusions were legitimate, non-retaliatory managerial decisions. | No genuine dispute; actions were non-retaliatory and reasonable. |
| Did Allen show pretext to defeat summary judgment? | Reasons were fabricated or inconsistent to mask retaliation. | Reasons were honestly held and supported by record evidence; inconsistencies are minimal. | Insufficient evidence of pretext; proffered reasons credible. |
| Did mid-year review omission support retaliation claim? | Failure to provide mid-year review signals retaliatory motive. | Policy and timing did not require a mid-year review; absence not evidence of retaliation. | No material dispute; district court affirmed summary judgment on this basis. |
| Did exclusion from meetings amount to actionable retaliation? | Meetings were essential to Allen’s duties and her exclusion harmed her job. | Exclusions were justified based on meeting relevance and Allen could seek attendance where appropriate. | Not actionable; reasons credible and non-retaliatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (retaliation prima facie framework and summary judgment standard)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (pretext and evidence framework in retaliation cases)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (pretext evidence and 'unworthy of credence' standard)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court, 2000) (pretext framework post-fabrication for summary judgment)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (fabrication evidence and retaliation reasoning)
- Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (evidence of employer motives and pretext indicators)
- Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (temporal proximity as circumstantial evidence of retaliation)
- Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity insufficient alone; need additional evidence)
- Allen I, 774 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.D.C. 2011) (background EEO proceedings and initial reassignment context)