Kilby-Robb v. Duncan
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47589
D.D.C.2017Background
- Patricia Kilby-Robb, an African American woman over 60, worked as a GS-13 Education Program Specialist at the U.S. Department of Education (OII/PIRC/CSP) and had filed multiple prior EEO complaints.
- She alleged race and age discrimination and retaliation based on several incidents between 2008–2010: a 2008 “satisfactory” performance rating, a December 2008 desk audit denying GS-14 reclassification, reassignment/removal of certain duties (including COR duties) in early 2009, a February 2009 meeting accusing her of misconduct, and five non-selections for promotions in 2009–2010.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each adverse action and that plaintiff provided only conclusory or self-serving evidence.
- Court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and summary judgment standards, requiring plaintiff to produce evidence that defendant’s explanations were pretextual.
- The court found defendant offered legitimate reasons for the performance rating, desk audit result, duty reassignments, and non-selections; Kilby-Robb failed to present evidence beyond her own assertions to show pretext or causation.
- Court granted summary judgment for the Department on all claims: race and age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2008 performance rating was discriminatory or retaliatory | Kilby-Robb argues rating was false and based on race/age/retaliation | Department produced documentation and supervisor declarations showing communication/performance problems | Court: Grant summary judgment for defendant — plaintiff failed to show pretext |
| Whether desk audit denial of GS-14 reclassification was discriminatory | Kilby-Robb contends supervisor (Kern) misrepresented duties to block promotion | Dept. showed conflicting accounts and legitimate disagreement about duties/qualifications | Court: Grant — plaintiff offered no evidence of intentional misrepresentation or pretext |
| Whether reassignment/removal of COR and other duties (Jan–Apr 2009) was adverse and discriminatory/retaliatory | Kilby-Robb claims duties were taken away and reassigned due to hostility and discrimination | Dept. showed duties were transferred for legitimate supervisory/oversight reasons and disputed that duties were removed | Court: Grant — no evidence of materially adverse change or pretext; age claim failed and race claim lacked inference |
| Whether non-selections for five positions (2009–2010) were discriminatory/retaliatory | Kilby-Robb asserts she was more qualified and selection decisions were motivated by discrimination/retaliation | Dept. produced selection records, interview notes, time-in-grade eligibility, and interviewers’ affidavits explaining legitimate reasons | Court: Grant — plaintiff did not show she was substantially more qualified, ineligible for some posts, or rebut interviewers’ statements to show pretext or causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant at summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burdine, Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (prima facie burden and employer’s production of nondiscriminatory reason)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (tangible employment action and economic harm)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (definition of adverse action and materially adverse consequences)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (focus on whether employer’s proffered reason is pretext at summary judgment)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standard for retaliation claims and materially adverse actions)
- Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (U.S. 2006) (qualifications evidence can support pretext in discrimination cases)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (plaintiff must be substantially more qualified to prove pretext by qualifications comparison)