McGrath v. Clinton
674 F. Supp. 2d 131
D.D.C.2011Background
- McGrath, a white male Foreign Service Officer, served since 1984 and was terminated effective November 30, 2004.
- He became Chief of the Division of Cultural Programs on September 10, 2001, under S. Wunder.
- Wunder allegedly pressured him to terminate Ms. Montgomery and critiqued his leadership and budgeting.
- Following a March 8, 2002 meeting, Wunder’s criticism was framed as performance concerns, with threats tied to Montgomery’s termination.
- McGrath filed an EEOC complaint on April 16, 2002; he received two negative evaluations (April 11 and April 24, 2002) and a subsequent involuntary curtailment in June 2002; he was assigned to the Declassification Unit in February 2003 and separated from the Foreign Service effective November 30, 2004; a December 31, 2002 Letter of Admonishment concerned a late credit card payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adverse actions were retaliatory | McGrath alleges Wunder pressured termination and retaliation after EEOC filing | Defendant shows non-retaliatory justifications for evaluations and curtailment | No genuine issue; defendant's non-retaliatory reasons hold. |
| Whether the Letter of Admonishment was an adverse action | Letter constitutes retaliation | Letter did not affect grade/salary/title or be in personnel file | Letter not an adverse action. |
| Whether assignment to Declassification Unit was retaliatory | Assignment followed EEOC proceedings and indicates retaliation | Delay due to market and curtailment; not retaliatory | Not retaliatory. |
| Whether the separation was causally connected to protected activity | Separation occurred after EEOC activity | Decision based on performance records; too remote timewise | Insufficient temporal proximity; not pretextual. |
| Whether gender or race claims survive abandonment | Claims retained; retaliatory framing includes gender/race | Plaintiff abandoned claims; no viable gender/race theory | Claims deemed abandoned; no hostile environment claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination and retaliation)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (discusses retaliation burden without McDonnell Douglas presumption)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (directs court to weigh all evidence beyond prima facie case)
- Brady v. Office of Sgt. at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (clarifies irrelevance of prima facie case where non-retaliatory reason exists)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (retaliation framework; evaluative guide for weighing evidence)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc; relevance of overall proof to pretext)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (requires reasonable belief of unlawfulness to protect activity)
- Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (non-retaliatory reasons may justify actions; burden on plaintiff)