898 F. Supp. 2d 121
D.D.C.2012Background
- Mamantov, a 67-year-old chemist, has worked for the EPA for over 30 years as GS-13 since 1983.
- He serves in the Exposure Assessment Branch and is the only organic chemist in that unit.
- Since 1999 he managed the High Protection Volume Chemical Challenge Program, reviewing fate assessments and coordinating division work.
- From 2002 to 2010 he repeatedly sought GS-14 level positions but was not promoted; Cathy Fehrenbacher was the selecting official in pivotal decisions.
- In 2002 a GS-14 vacancy was not offered to him; a 2006 desk audit was not implemented as he claimed; and unwarranted reprimands occurred 2006–2009.
- In November 2009 he was not selected for a GS-14 position (Cinalli was chosen); in February 2010 he filed a second administrative complaint alleging age/sex discrimination and retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether background time-barred acts can support timely claims | Mamantov contends background acts support timely claims. | Background acts cannot sustain independent timely claims; must relate to timely events. | Background acts may support timely claims only if connection is adequately explained; court grants in part. |
| Whether the March 2010 reassignment constitutes an adverse action for discrimination | Reassignment lowered supervisory responsibilities and GS-14–level duties. | Reassignment did not materially affect duties or pay. | Court pleads sufficient facts to show adverse action for discrimination; denial of dismissal on this claim. |
| Whether the March 2010 reassignment constitutes retaliation | Reassignment was aimed at defeating his promotion claim and retaliating for complaints. | No clear materially adverse action; merits require more development. | Material adversity plausible; jury involvement needed to determine scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts and timely filing requirements; background evidence rules)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (adverse action standard in retaliation context)
- Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (adverse action analysis for reassignment and duties)
- Kempthorne v. District of Columbia, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (adverse action and supervisory responsibilities in reassignment context)
- Geleta v. Gray, 645 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (loss of supervisory responsibilities as adverse action in retaliation/discrimination)
- Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (whether reassignment constitutes adverse action is generally a jury question)
- Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan, 601 F.3d 599 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (retaliation and material adversity standards)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)