Jenkins v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 2015-2080

Jenkins, a long-time D.C. architect, was laterally transferred into D.C. General Services (DGS) and required to apply for internal DGS positions to move to the DGS (Career Service) pay scale.
In March 2014 she applied for two Project Manager positions: CS-14 (#24562) and CS-13 (#24563); DGS offered her the CS-13 position, which she declined.
Jenkins filed administrative charges alleging race and age discrimination; EEOC dismissed and issued a right-to-sue notice. She then sued the District under Title VII, the D.C. Human Rights Act, and the ADEA, and also alleged a hostile-work-environment under Title VII.
The District moved for summary judgment arguing Jenkins had no evidence of discrimination or a hostile work environment and that legitimate non-discriminatory reasons supported the hires.
Key disputed facts included whether Jenkins was considered for CS-14, the qualifications and races/ages of those hired, and whether any alleged harassment was severe, pervasive, or linked to protected traits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Race discrimination for non-selection to CS-14	Jenkins: she was qualified and passed over because she is African American	D.C.: selected better-qualified internal candidates; selected hires included minorities	Summary judgment for defendant; no reasonable jury could find intentional race discrimination
Age discrimination for non-selection to CS-14	Jenkins: younger employees were chosen over her	D.C.: hires already held higher grades/supervisory roles; legitimate reasons for selection	Summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff failed to show pretext or that age motivated decision
Hostile work environment under Title VII	Jenkins: supervisor yelled and berated her and there was routine harassment based on race/age	D.C.: isolated incidents not severe/pervasive and not shown to be because of protected status	Summary judgment for defendant; conduct not objectively severe/pervasive nor linked to protected characteristics
42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim	Jenkins initially pled a §1981 claim	D.C.: a municipality cannot be sued under §1981	Court dismissed §1981 claim (plaintiff conceded legal point)

Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in plaintiff's favor)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and genuine dispute inquiry)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer must articulate legitimate non-discriminatory reason)
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (mixed-motive proof under Title VII)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (sufficiency of evidence after employer articulates nondiscriminatory reason)
Murray v. Gilmore, 406 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (hiring of same-race candidates undermines inference of discrimination)
Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must be significantly better qualified to show discriminatory intent via qualifications comparison)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment standard: severe or pervasive)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (objective and subjective components of hostile-work-environment inquiry)
Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) (§1983 provides exclusive remedy for constitutional claims against state actors, not §1981)