Mokhtar v. Clinton, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31002

Background

Nadia Mokhtar, a 67‑year‑old GG‑11 Language and Culture Instructor at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute, sued alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA and Title VII and a hostile‑work‑environment claim. She proceeded pro se.
Disputed events center on Mokhtar’s failure to complete an examiner recertification, a mid‑year performance agreement, missed student consultations and a January 2011 “Not Successful” 2010 performance rating, and the Department’s refusal to nominate her for a 2010 award.
Mokhtar also developed, on her own initiative, an Egyptian Arabic consular training module that was later cancelled when FSI adopted a multi‑dialect module; she claimed the cancellation was discriminatory/retaliatory.
Mokhtar filed an EEO complaint in 2011 asserting age discrimination and reprisal based on the performance rating and a hostile work environment; the agency accepted those claims and later accepted a claim about denial of awards. The agency did not explicitly investigate every discrete allegation Mokhtar later raised in court.
The Department moved for summary judgment, arguing Mokhtar failed to exhaust many claims administratively and that exhausted claims fail on the merits; the Court granted summary judgment for the Department in full.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies for the cancelled module project	Mokhtar contends the cancellation was alleged in her formal EEO complaint and thus was exhausted	Dept. argues the agency did not accept or investigate that claim; Mokhtar failed to object to the acceptance letter	Court: Mokhtar exhausted the module‑cancellation claim because it was plainly alleged in her formal charge and the agency unreasonably omitted it from investigation
Exhaustion/timeliness of 2007–2008 non‑selection and volunteer claims	Mokhtar argues these are part of her broader pattern of discrimination	Dept. argues Mokhtar failed to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of those events	Held: Mokhtar failed to timely initiate EEO counseling for the 2007–2008 claims; those claims are dismissed for failure to exhaust
Merits — ADEA/Title VII challenge to 2010 "Not Successful" ratings and denial of award	Mokhtar asserts the ratings and lack of award were due to age and reprisal; she disputes the necessity/validity of recertification and recordkeeping criticisms	Dept. proffers legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons: missed consultations, failure to timely complete examiner recertification, poor recordkeeping; award policy requires high performance	Held: Court applies Brady framework and finds Dept.’s reasons credible and Mokhtar fails to show pretext; summary judgment for Dept. on ratings and award claims
Merits — discrimination/retaliation based on cancellation of module project	Mokhtar treats cancellation as adverse action and retaliatory (pointing to past protected EEO activity)	Dept. argues cancellation was not an adverse employment action; also lack of causal connection to protected activity	Held: Project cancellation not an objectively tangible adverse employment action; retaliation claim fails for lack of causation (protected activity occurred ~12 years earlier); summary judgment for Dept.
Hostile work environment claim	Mokhtar alleges cumulative slights, false accusations, and managerial conduct created a hostile environment	Dept. argues incidents are isolated, lack evidence of discriminatory animus, and do not show severe or pervasive conduct	Held: Incidents are isolated/insufficiently severe or pervasive; Court grants summary judgment for Dept.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden shifting in discrimination cases)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (district courts may proceed directly to whether plaintiff showed employer’s reason was pretext)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile‑work‑environment standard; statutes are not general civility codes)
Nassar v. Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (scope of administrative charge: claims must be like or reasonably related)
Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (standard for hostile work environment and review of personnel decisions)
Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (definition of adverse employment action)
Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (materially adverse consequences standard)
Wilson v. Peña, 79 F.3d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency obligation to complete investigation; exhaustion policies)