955 F. Supp. 2d 33
D.D.C.2013Background
- Brenda J. Lee, an African‑American born in 1948, was a GS‑12 program analyst at NAVSEA and sought promotion/accretion to GS‑13 in 2004.
- In 1999 and 2002 Lee participated in co‑worker Carolyn Bolling’s EEO proceedings (declaration and testimony); Lee later alleged retaliation for that participation.
- Lee asked her supervisor (Randolph) about an accretion‑of‑duties promotion in April–July 2004; Randolph told her a desk audit was the procedure and that any reclassification would be competitive. Lee never requested a desk audit.
- NAVSEA filled a GS‑13 vacancy (63IC1) in mid‑2004 by selecting Marivic Britton from an earlier applicant list for a different advertised vacancy (63IC2); Lee did not apply or upload a resume until September 2004.
- In April 2005 Lee’s first‑line supervisor (Seibel) reassigned several countries (Australia, Egypt, Korea) away from Lee to redistribute workload; Lee asserts this reduced major responsibilities.
- Lee sued (Title VII and ADEA) alleging race and age discrimination and retaliation based on: denial of accretion promotion, non‑selection for GS‑13, and reduction of work duties. Court grants summary judgment to the Secretary in full, except it denies summary judgment on timeliness of exhaustion for the accretion claim due to a factual dispute about when denial occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timely exhaustion of accretion‑of‑duties claim | Lee says the denial occurred in July 2004 (within 45 days of her Aug. 3, 2004 EEO contact) | Secretary says denial occurred April 30, 2004 (time‑barred) | Disputed fact as to the date; summary judgment on timeliness denied (issue remains factual) |
| Discrimination: accretion‑of‑duties promotion | Randolph denied Lee the promotion on discriminatory/age‑biased grounds and policy cited was pretext | NAVSEA had a bona fide policy barring noncompetitive accretion promotions; Lee never sought desk audit or otherwise applied | Lee failed to make out a prima facie case or show pretext; summary judgment for Secretary on merits of claim |
| Discrimination: non‑selection to GS‑13 (63IC1) | Lee argues she was effectively denied opportunity and was qualified; selection was pretextual and irregular | Lee did not apply or express timely interest; employer permissibly used an earlier qualified candidate list and selected Britton | Lee did not apply/make reasonable attempt to convey interest and did not show pretext; summary judgment for Secretary |
| Retaliation and reduction of duties | Lee contends reassignment and non‑promotion were retaliatory for her EEO participation | Employer cites legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons (policy, workload redistribution); temporal gap from Lee’s protected activity undermines causation | No causal link established (protected activity ended Dec. 2002); legitimate reasons unrebutted; summary judgment for Secretary on retaliation and duties claims |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (defines retaliation and materially adverse action in Title VII retaliation claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext and evidentiary standards for proving discrimination)
- Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344 (D.C. Cir.) (on evaluating whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to infer discrimination from prima facie case plus rebuttal evidence)
- Ford v. Mabus, 629 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir.) (employer’s burden to produce legitimate non‑discriminatory explanation)
- Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (en banc) (consideration of combined evidence to infer discrimination)
- Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir.) (prima facie elements for non‑selection claims)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir.) (application of McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA and Title VII claims)