Mayorga v. Ayers
Civil Action No. 2015-1604
D.D.C.Dec 7, 2017Background
- Javier A. Mayorga, a Hispanic AOC Electronic Industrial Controls Mechanic, sued under the CAA/Title VII after not being selected for two Electronics Technician (GS-10/11) positions in EMCS in 2014.
- Selecting official Scott Bieber and a three-member panel interviewed candidates and sought two complementary skill sets: one network-oriented and one graphics/programming-oriented role.
- Panel selected Edward Williams and John Coulter (both Caucasian) based on demonstrated Ethernet/fiber/Cisco experience, certifications, and interview examples; Mayorga was rated lower because he gave fewer specifics and reported limited fiber/Cisco experience.
- Mayorga contends he had BASnet experience and was the most qualified, and alleges discriminatory comments/hostility (mocking accent, mispronouncing name, being called "Caviar") primarily by supervisors/coworkers.
- The agency defended the hires with multiple legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (relevant technical experience, certifications, interview performance); the court found these reasons credible and not shown to be pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonselection was discriminatory based on race/national origin | Mayorga: he was most qualified and was passed over because of Hispanic origin and hostile remarks; selecting official mischaracterized his BASnet experience | AOC: selected Williams and Coulter for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (network/fiber/Cisco experience, certifications, interview detail) | Court granted summary judgment for defendant — plaintiff failed to show employer’s reasons were pretextual |
| Whether alleged misstatement about BASnet experience shows pretext | Mayorga: Bieber falsely said Mayorga had no BASnet experience, showing bias | AOC: any misstatement was an honest, immaterial factual dispute and other reasons existed for nonselection | Court: even if mischaracterized, it was a minor/factual dispute and not evidence of discriminatory intent |
| Whether Mayorga was significantly better qualified than selectees | Mayorga: his background and awards show superior qualifications | AOC: Williams and Coulter had more relevant network/fiber/Cisco experience; Mayorga conceded limited fiber/Cisco experience in interview | Court: Mayorga was not "significantly" better qualified; no inference of discrimination |
| Whether workplace comments/behavior establish discriminatory animus tied to hiring decision | Mayorga: cites mocking, mispronunciations, comments about English as evidence of bias | AOC: alleged comments are stray, often by non-decisionmakers, and not tied to the selection decision | Court: stray/unsupported remarks are insufficient; no evidence linking remarks to the hiring decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute and reasonable jury inference)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir.) (central question: whether evidence permits jury to find employer's reason was pretext)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (credibility determinations and jury role)
- Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir.) (plaintiff must be significantly better qualified to rebut qualifications-based reasons)
- Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir.) (ways to show employer's explanation fabricated)
- Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir.) (court should not act as super-personnel department)