Johnson v. Bolden, Jr., 273 F. Supp. 3d 278

Plaintiff Donald S. Johnson, an African-American man born in 1947, worked at NASA from 1999 until his 2010 retirement as a GS-13 EEO Specialist and never advanced to GS-14.
In 2008 two EEO Specialist career-ladder positions were re-advertised as GS-13 with potential to advance; both Johnson and Aisha Moore applied and were selected for the GS-13 roles; Moore later was promoted to GS-14.
NASA supervisors documented repeated deficiencies in Johnson’s written work and timeliness, returned work for numerous errors, and noted incomplete assignments (including an unfinished Contingent Worker Desk Guide); supervisors advised him these performance problems precluded promotion.
Johnson contacted an EEO counselor in December 2010 and filed a formal EEO complaint in March 2011 alleging age, sex, race discrimination and retaliation and claiming unequal pay; the EEOC granted summary judgment for NASA and rejected his EPA claim.
Johnson filed this suit (ADEA, Title VII, and EPA). NASA moved for summary judgment; Johnson repeatedly failed to file an opposition despite multiple extensions and a status conference.
The district court evaluated undisputed facts and granted summary judgment to NASA on the ADEA, Title VII, and retaliation claims (performance-based, non-discriminatory reason), but dismissed the EPA claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Tucker Act/Little Tucker Act issue).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NASA’s failure to promote Johnson constituted age or sex discrimination	Johnson asserts non-promotion was because of his age, sex, race	NASA asserts non-promotion was due to Johnson’s poor performance (written work and timeliness)	Court: NASA’s performance-based reason is legitimate; summary judgment for NASA on ADEA and Title VII claims
Whether NASA’s actions were retaliation for prior EEO activity	Johnson contends adverse action followed prior EEO complaints	NASA points to contemporaneous performance reviews and uncompleted assignments as non-retaliatory reasons	Court: No evidence of pretext or retaliatory motive; summary judgment for NASA on retaliation claim
Whether similarly situated comparator (Moore) shows pretext	Johnson points to Moore’s promotion as evidence of disparate treatment	NASA shows Moore’s superior performance and additional office-wide projects—performance not comparable	Court: Moore not similarly situated; comparator evidence insufficient to show pretext
Whether the court has jurisdiction over Johnson’s Equal Pay Act claim	Johnson seeks back pay/wages and states amount in controversy exceeds $10,000	NASA notes procedural limits but did not contest jurisdiction; court must determine jurisdiction sua sponte	Court: District court lacks jurisdiction over EPA/FLSA monetary claims exceeding $10,000 absent a clear waiver; EPA claim dismissed without prejudice (could be filed in Court of Federal Claims)

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine issue of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (burden on movant and nonmovant at summary judgment)
Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir.) (failure to oppose does not automatically concede summary judgment; movant retains burden)
Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir.) (prima facie discrimination requires adverse employment action because of protected trait)
Allen v. Johnson, 795 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir.) (employer’s honestly held, reasonable belief about performance precludes finding of pretext)
Waters v. Rumsfeld, 320 F.3d 265 (D.C. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over FLSA claims in excess of $10,000)
Abbey v. United States, 745 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (FLSA monetary claims implicate Tucker Act forum considerations)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (court’s independent obligation to ensure subject-matter jurisdiction)