Maria Dufau v. Thomas Price, 703 F. App'x 164

Maria Dufau, a 78-year-old NIH scientist, sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the ADEA alleging age discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
Alleged adverse acts: reduction and cap of lab budget, lowered site-visit rankings (2008, 2012), a supervisor’s comment that “the biological clock is ticking,” proposed relocation to inadequate space (never effectuated), reduced staff, and a poor performance review.
Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment and submitted an internal administrative record; Dufau opposed and filed a Rule 56(d) affidavit seeking discovery.
The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding Dufau failed to establish prima facie cases; denied Dufau’s Rule 56(d) discovery request.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Dufau failed to show an adverse employment action for discrimination or retaliation, (2) her allegations did not establish a sufficiently severe or pervasive hostile work environment, and (3) the Rule 56(d) request was insufficiently specific and would not have created a genuine dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dufau alleged an adverse employment action supporting ADEA discrimination	Budget/staff cuts, poor reviews, relocation proposal and lowered rankings were materially adverse	Actions did not alter terms or status of employment; no demotion, pay cut, reassignment, or constructive discharge	No adverse action; prima facie discrimination and retaliation failed
Whether facts established a hostile work environment based on age	Comment about the "biological clock," budget/staff limitations, and treatment created abusive environment	Isolated remark and administrative decisions were not severe or pervasive harassment	No hostile work environment; conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive
Whether Dufau’s retaliation claim survives summary judgment	Retaliation followed her complaints; adverse consequences impaired her work	No materially adverse action tied to protected activity	Retaliation claim fails for lack of adverse employment action or causal showing
Whether district court abused discretion in denying Rule 56(d) discovery	More discovery would develop facts showing adverse action and hostility	56(d) affidavit was conclusory and did not identify specific facts that discovery would produce	Denial affirmed; 56(d) request was too broad and would not have created a genuine dispute

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (tolling and scope of hostile-work-environment claims)
Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (definition and analysis of hostile work environment)
Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321 (what constitutes an adverse employment action)
James v. Booz–Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d 371 (when poor performance evaluations are actionable)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard and summary judgment evidence rule)
McCray v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., 741 F.3d 480 (liberal granting of Rule 56(d) relief but limits)
Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191 (standard for denying discovery under Rule 56(d) when evidence would not create a genuine issue)