Judith Barnett v. PA Consulting Group, Inc.
404 U.S. App. D.C. 439
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- PA Consulting Group fired Barnett in Oct 2003 during a Transportation Group restructuring aimed at profitability.
- Barnett, age 57, was a long-tenured managing consultant with strong overall performance but a non-airline-focused practice.
- Gao, a 41-year-old male with similar China-focused skill, was retained; Barnett was not offered any split or alternative placement.
- PA created six focus propositions tied to aviation and airport-related work guiding the layoffs.
- An internal memo and charts rated employees; Barnett and Gao had similar Skill/Capability but different notes ('Trade' for Barnett, 'China' for Gao).
- District court granted summary judgment; Barnett appeals claiming pretext and unlawful discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stated reason is pretext | Barnett argues the reason is pretext for age/sex discrimination. | PA asserts restructuring and lack of fit justify firing; no discrimination intended. | Reversed; evidence could show pretext. |
| Whether GAO's retention undermines 'fit' claim | Gao’s retention shows fit was not sole reason for Barnett’s dismissal. | Gao’s different niche and pay considerations justified keeping him. | Reversed; jury could find pretext given similarly situated comparison. |
| Whether age-related information in the spreadsheet supports discrimination | Spreadsheet including ages may reflect age-based decision-making. | Spreadsheet was not shown to influence firing decisions; decision by Kelly. | Reversed; could be probative evidence of discrimination. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given disputed fact questions | Material disputes exist about motives and the role of age. | Business decision and market conditions justify actions; no pretext shown. | Remand for further proceedings; credibility and factual disputes remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (pretext evidence may support discrimination finding)
- Vatel v. Alliance of Auto Mfrs., 627 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (summary judgment in Title VII pretext/claims analyzed)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant of Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (pretext and discrimination framework at summary judgment)
- Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (avoid judicial overreach into business decisions at summary judgment)
- Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan, 601 F.3d 599 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (credibility and factual disputes are jury questions at summary judgment)
- Salazar v. Metro. Auth., 401 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (credibility and inference analysis at summary judgment)