Liew v. District of Columbia
278 F. Supp. 3d 77
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Amy Liew, an Asian probationary Legal Instrument Examiner at D.C. DMV (hired April 7, 2014), alleges race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the DCHRA after workplace incidents and attendance discipline.
- Liew reported a coworker, Thomas Gaymon, who allegedly made racial comments and threatened her on November 14, 2014; Gaymon was reassigned the next business day.
- DMV had a strict tardiness/AWOL policy; Liew was verbally warned about tardiness prior to the Gaymon incident and recorded AWOL on November 12, 2014.
- After the Gaymon incident Liew was marked AWOL for multiple late arrivals (Dec 4, Dec 9, Dec 13, Jan 16, Jan 22, Jan 23) and received a January 22 letter advising schedule adjustment; she was terminated on February 6, 2015 during her probationary period.
- DMV produced termination evidence showing three other probationary examiners were also terminated for failing to appear on time.
- The court found Liew offered only conclusory allegations and no comparator evidence showing differential treatment; DMV’s nondiscriminatory reason (tardiness) was credited and summary judgment for the DMV was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (termination) | Liew says she was singled out after reporting racial comments and treated more harshly for minor lateness compared to others | DMV says termination was for repeated tardiness/AWOL after warnings; legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason | Court: Grant summary judgment to DMV — Liew failed to produce evidence showing discriminatory intent or similarly situated comparators |
| Retaliation (after complaining about Gaymon) | Liew contends AWOL marks and termination were retaliation for reporting Gaymon | DMV: disciplinary actions followed prior warnings and continued tardiness; contemporaneous discipline nonretaliatory | Court: Grant summary judgment — no evidence that adverse actions were caused by protected complaint |
| Comparator proof | Liew: DMV comparators not similar or records incomplete | DMV: produced termination letters for three other probationary employees terminated for same reason | Court: Liew bore burden to present evidence allowing meaningful comparison; she did not, so comparator claim fails |
| Sufficiency of performance evidence | Liew: had a strong evaluation, undermining DMV’s proffered reason | DMV: evaluation mixed, covered earlier period predating many AWOLs and warnings | Court: Evaluation did not create material dispute; it does not negate tardiness-based reason |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards and nonmoving party burden)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654 (summary judgment factual view principle)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (plaintiff prima facie burden and defendant's burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (district court focuses on pretext when employer articulates legitimate reason)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (evidence required to show employer's reason is pretext)
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (elements of retaliation claim)
- Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151 (employer's articulation of legitimate reasons under burden-shifting)