McKeithan v. Boarman
803 F. Supp. 2d 63
D.D.C.2011Background
- McKeithan, a long-time GPO employee, alleges gender, religious, and age discrimination and retaliation against Boarman in his official capacity as Public Printer.
- Plaintiff alleges supervisor Wilson engaged in sexually harassing conduct toward women and showed plaintiff a nude photo; McKeithan reported it to supervisors and HR, resulting in Wilson's discipline.
- Two days later Wilson allegedly accused McKeithan of unprofessional conduct; McKeithan later received a downgraded performance rating and was reassigned repeatedly, culminating in retirement.
- McKeithan filed an EEO complaint in February 2010 alleging sex, age, and religion discrimination; the EEO accepted only the age discrimination claim for investigation.
- McKeithan then filed suit (January 2011); after a motion to dismiss and a later amendment, Boarman re-moved to dismiss again, arguing failure to exhaust and failure to state claims.
- The court analyzes exhaustion, hostile-work-environment elements, and retaliation, and grants dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | McKeithan exhausted all claims by administrative proceedings. | Only age claim was accepted for investigation; gender, religious, and retaliation claims were not exhausted. | Dismissal upheld for failure to exhaust those claims. |
| Hostile work environment based on gender, religion, or age | Allegations show hostile conduct tied to protected classes. | Conduct was not plausibly linked to any protected class; no discriminating nexus shown. | Counts I, II, and IV dismissed for lack of plausible hostile-work-environment claim. |
| Retaliation claim | Allegations constitute protected activity and adverse action in retaliation. | Plaintiff failed to plead statutorily protected activity; single incident insufficient. | Count III dismissed for lack of protected activity and failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility not mere possibility)
- Kizas v. Webster, 707 F.2d 524 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (exhaustion required for Title VII claims against federal agencies)
- Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (administrative exhaustion prerequisites)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (hostile environment not a general civility code)
- Rivera v. P.R. Aqueduct and Sewers Auth., 331 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2003) (linkage required between harassment and protected class)
- Cromer-Kendall v. District of Columbia, 326 F.Supp.2d 50 (D.D.C. 2004) (sex harassment requires discrimination on basis of sex)
- Bryant v. Pepco, 730 F.Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2010) (plausible retaliation requires protected activity)
- Little v. United Techs., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (opposition to unlawful practice must be reasonable)
- Sewell v. Hugler, F. App’x , 2009 WL 585660 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (constructive discharge requires intolerable environment)