Kevin Hairston v. Davita Vance-Cooks, 413 U.S. App. D.C. 248

Kevin Hairston, a Black GPO employee, applied in 2006 for promotion to Second Offset Pressperson; Personnel found he met minimum qualifications but Production Manager Bernazzoli rejected the promotion as the role required immediate, experienced operators.
Bernazzoli relied on the views of supervisors (Domarsky, Verter) who believed Hairston lacked sufficient experience to run the six-color Heidelberg press without ~6 months’ training; several witnesses corroborated the training time estimate.
GPO reposted the vacancy nationally; Hairston interviewed but scored lowest; GPO hired Douglas Davis (white), who had extensive multicolor experience; Hairston later filed an EEO complaint alleging racial discrimination.
Hairston later temporarily performed some Second Offset duties and received good reviews, but supervisors testified his duties were limited and did not contradict earlier assessments about training needs.
Hairston also alleged retaliation for filing his EEO complaint when he was not sent to an optional Georgia training; the decisionmaker (Davis) said Hairston had not expressed interest and that Davis did not know of Hairston’s EEO activity.
The district court granted summary judgment for the GPO on discrimination and retaliation claims; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding Hairston failed to show pretext or causal link for retaliation.

Issue	Hairston’s Argument	GPO’s Argument	Held
Failure to promote (disparate treatment under Title VII)	Bernazzoli’s stated nondiscriminatory reason (inexperience) was pretext; conflicting testimony, post-hire performance, and alleged patronizing comments show racial motive	The decisionmaker honestly believed Hairston lacked immediate experience; corroborated by supervisors and contemporaneous evaluations	Affirmed: Hairston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that GPO’s reason was pretextual or racially motivated
Retaliation for filing EEO complaint (excluded from Georgia training)	Exclusion was retaliatory and adverse; GPO knew of EEO complaint so selection was retaliatory	Davis relied on a survey indicating Hairston was not interested and had no knowledge of Hairston’s EEO activity; no causal nexus	Affirmed: assuming adverse action, Hairston offered no evidence that Davis knew of complaint or that the proffered reason was pretextual

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for discriminatory treatment cases)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (clarified burdens under McDonnell Douglas)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (do not decide prima facie if employer articulates legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; focus on pretext)
Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (employer need only honestly believe its proffered reason)
Jackson v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (later elaboration of reasons does not alone create factual dispute)
Vatel v. Alliance of Auto. Mfrs., 627 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (relevant inquiry is decisionmaker’s perception, not plaintiff’s self-assessment)
Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (retaliation requires decisionmaker’s knowledge of protected activity)