Kangethe v. District of Columbia Government, Civil Action No. 2015-2185

Background

John Kangethe, a 61-year-old labor economist at D.C. Department of Employment Services (DOES), sued the District under ADEA, DCHRA, and Title VII alleging age discrimination and retaliation.
Two adverse actions remained: (1) alleged denial (or untimely approval) of leave to prepare for/attend a deposition in a prior discrimination suit; (2) non-selection for an Associate Director, Labor Market Information (LMI AD) permanent position.
Kangethe requested eight hours leave for April 9, 2014; supervisor failed to timely approve, leaving Kangethe unable to use four morning hours to prepare; he attended the deposition in the afternoon.
Vacancy No. 25001 (May 2014): Kangethe applied; a HR reviewer scored him below threshold, claiming no resume was submitted. Vacancy No. 25001 was cancelled; Vacancy No. 25461 (Aug 2014) was reposted, Kangethe did not apply, and a younger applicant was ultimately selected.
Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing (a) the leave incident was not a materially adverse action, and (b) Defendant offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (insufficient experience / no resume) for non-selection that Kangethe failed to rebut.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the failure to timely approve leave an adverse action for retaliation?	Kangethe says the untimely denial materially affected his ability to prepare for a key deposition and thus could dissuade a reasonable employee from pursuing a discrimination claim.	District says the delay was not materially adverse and therefore cannot support a retaliation claim.	Court: Fact question for jury; reasonable juror could find the denial materially adverse, so summary judgment denied.
Was Kangethe’s non-selection for the LMI AD position legitimate / nondiscriminatory?	Kangethe contends he submitted a resume and was qualified; the employer’s stated reason (no resume/insufficient experience) is false and possibly pretextual.	District says Kangethe lacked required experience on the screened application (no resume attached) and did not apply to the reposted vacancy.	Court: For Vacancy No. 25461, no dispute (Kangethe didn’t apply). For Vacancy No. 25001, genuine dispute (conflicting evidence about a resume and qualifications) — jury question; summary judgment denied.
Can failure to apply to a reposted vacancy defeat the claim entirely?	Kangethe relies on application to the initial posting and Cones-type continuation of vacancy theory.	District emphasizes non-application to reposted vacancy as dispositive for that posting.	Court: Kangethe may rely on the initial vacancy (25001) because position remained effectively open; failure to apply to 25461 does not end his claim.
Is the employer’s inadvertent/benign explanation (e.g., supervisor forgot; system shows no resume) decisive?	Kangethe argues evidence (confirmation email, his testimony) permits a jury to discredit employer explanations.	District presents system screenshots, HR and IT testimony showing no resume and an explanation for the delay.	Court: Credibility/resolution of competing evidence is for the jury; summary judgment inappropriate.

Key Cases Cited

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation)
Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in favor of nonmovant)
International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (constructive-applicant/class relief principles)
Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (prima facie showing where position remains vacant and employer continues to seek applicants)
Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (weight of discrediting employer’s proffered reason)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (factfinder’s rejection of employer’s explanation permits inference of intentional discrimination)
Rattigan v. Holder, 643 F.3d 975 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (materiality of adverse action generally a jury question)