McManus v. Johnson
246 F. Supp. 3d 103
D.D.C.2017Background
- Sheree McManus, a Black FEMA grants-management specialist with ~10 years’ experience, served temporarily as a supervisory grants manager and received superior reviews; she alleges stronger policy/grants experience than selectees.
- She applied for multiple supervisory positions in 2008–2009 (was interviewed but not selected) and contacted an EEO counselor on November 12, 2009; she filed a formal EEO complaint in February 2010.
- In May 2010 she applied for ten additional FEMA vacancies; she was certified eligible for each but was not interviewed or selected for any of the ten.
- McManus amended her EEO complaint to allege that the 2010 non-selections were due to race and age discrimination and were retaliatory for her earlier EEO activity; an ALJ later declined to sustain her EEO claims.
- McManus sued in district court alleging Title VII and ADEA discrimination (race and age), and retaliation (non-selection for the ten 2010 positions, an unfavorable 2012 “proficient” appraisal, and an office relocation).
- The Court: granted in part and denied in part FEMA’s combined motion to dismiss/for summary judgment — dismissing or granting summary judgment on some claims and allowing others to proceed; McManus was given leave to amend limited claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McManus exhausted administrative remedies for certain 2010 non-selections | McManus contends her amended EEO complaint covered the ten 2010 non-selections; she disputes any effective withdrawal | FEMA says McManus orally withdrew race claims for seven positions and age claims for three, so those claims are unexhausted | Court declined to grant summary judgment on exhaustion based on record/breach of EEOC guidance; cannot find withdrawal on current record |
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges race and age discrimination for 2010 non-selections | McManus alleges superior qualifications, policy/grants expertise, having trained selectees, and that selectees had less experience | FEMA argues complaint lacks factual detail to infer discrimination (e.g., lacking comparators/selecting official knowledge) | Complaint contains sufficient factual matter to make discrimination claims plausible; motion to dismiss denied as to those claims |
| Whether the 2012 “proficient” performance rating and office move are actionable adverse actions for retaliation | McManus says the lower rating and the move were retaliatory adverse actions | FEMA argues an isolated lower review without alleged consequences and an office move are not adverse; move preceded protected activity so cannot be retaliatory | Court: performance-rating claim dismissed for failure to plead consequences (may amend); office move predated EEO contact — summary judgment for FEMA on that claim |
| Whether McManus plausibly alleged causal link for retaliation (non-selections) | McManus relies on temporal proximity and difference in treatment (interviewed pre-litigation; not interviewed post-filing) to infer causation | FEMA contends plaintiff did not allege decisionmakers knew of EEO activity and therefore no causal link | Court held temporal proximity and circumstantial allegations suffice at pleading stage; retaliation claim based on ten 2010 non-selections survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires plausible claim based on factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must nudge claims from conceivable to plausible)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (performance reviews are adverse only when tied to tangible harms)
- Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (retaliation adverse-action standard — dissuasive effect)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (materially adverse action in retaliation context defined by dissuasive effect)
- Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (plaintiff need not plead prima facie elements in detail to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (no requirement that replacement be outside plaintiff’s protected class)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity can support inference of causation in retaliation claims)