Moeller v. LaFleur
246 F. Supp. 3d 130
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- James W. Moeller (born 1958), an experienced energy lawyer, applied to multiple FERC attorney vacancies (2010, 2013/2012 posting, and 2014) and was not interviewed or hired for the 2014 Office of Enforcement position that is the subject of this suit.
- The 2014 vacancy sought mid/senior-level attorneys with litigation experience (preferably federal-court litigation, depositions, trial/expert-witness experience) or, alternatively, extensive FERC/energy regulatory experience; FERC received 128 applications and interviewed five candidates (all of whom had concrete litigation experience).
- Moeller claims the 2014 non-selection was due to age in violation of the ADEA and also alleges that the 2010 and 2012 non-selections evidence a pattern/practice of age discrimination; he seeks damages and equitable relief.
- FERC’s articulated nondiscriminatory reason: hiring managers (Applebaum) prioritized applicants with substantial federal litigation experience; the agency therefore selected interviewees with specific litigation credentials.
- The district court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, evaluated whether Moeller produced evidence that FERC’s stated reason was pretextual, and considered exhaustion and pattern-or-practice arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FERC’s 2014 decision not to interview Moeller violated the ADEA (individual disparate-treatment) | Moeller contends he was not interviewed because of age and was more qualified than interviewees | FERC says it declined to interview Moeller because he lacked the federal-court litigation experience the hiring manager sought | Court: Granted summary judgment for defendant; Moeller failed to produce evidence that the stated reason was pretext for age discrimination |
| Whether Moeller met his burden to show FERC’s stated reason was unworthy of credence (pretext) | Points to (a) FERC congressional/courtroom positions inconsistent with need for litigators, (b) vacancy language and interview notes, (c) similarity between admin and federal litigation, (d) his superior experience | FERC: hiring manager honestly and reasonably sought litigators; interviewed candidates had concrete litigation credentials | Court: Plaintiff’s contentions do not create a genuine dispute; employer’s belief was honest and reasonable; mere disagreement about hiring judgment is insufficient |
| Whether alleged 2010 and 2012 non-selections support a pattern-or-practice claim | Moeller asserts those past non-selections show a pattern of age discrimination that bears on 2014 decision | FERC notes Moeller did not administratively exhaust claims relating to 2010/2012 and that isolated incidents do not establish a pattern | Court: Claims based on 2010/2012 fail for lack of exhaustion; Moeller did not prove a classwide pattern or standard operating procedure of age discrimination |
| Remedies / appropriate standard of causation (mixed-motive vs. but-for) | Moeller requested damages and equitable relief based on but-for causation | FERC argued McDonnell Douglas applies and requested summary judgment | Court: Because Moeller alleged age was the reason, McDonnell Douglas (but-for) framework applies; plaintiff failed to prove but-for causation or pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for analyzing circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (plaintiff's prima facie burden and defendant's burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (plaintiff must show employer's reason was pretextual; burden-shifting context)
- International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (pattern-or-practice proof standard)
- DeJesus v. WP Co., 841 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (court evaluates whether employer’s stated belief was honest and reasonable; courts should not act as super-personnel departments)