Moore v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 828 F. Supp. 2d 254

Moore, white male over 40, served as Day Shift Supervisor, Electric Shop, House Office Buildings, starting April 13, 2009.
He underwent a one-year probation period.
As of May 2009, Moore’s chain of supervision included Adeyemi (General Foreman), Murphy (Assistant Superintendent), Carroll (Deputy Superintendent), and Weidemeyer (Superintendent).
Moore received Fully Successful ratings on both the November 4, 2009 mid-year and January 29, 2010 end-of-year evaluations.
Moore ranked three subordinates as Outstanding; two were white men over 40 and one was a Guatemalan man over 40; Murphy and Adeyemi rejected those Outstanding ratings, Moore resubmitted, and the ratings were eventually changed to Fully Successful.
On March 12–26, 2010, Acting Architect Stephen Ayers placed Moore on paid administrative leave and terminated him for allegedly dissatisfied performance; Moore filed suit August 30, 2010 alleging discriminatory and retaliatory practices under the CAA and moved to dismiss Counts V–VIII, which the court granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore’s retaliation claims survive under CAA standards.	Moore contends retaliation is shown by opposing discriminatory practices; opposition can be shown by communicating belief in discrimination.	AOC argues Moore failed to communicate any belief that the ratings or other actions were discriminatory.	Counts V–VIII dismissed for failure to allege Moore communicated opposition to discrimination.

Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (retaliation requires opposition; knowledge of protected activity not enough without communication)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for surviving Rule 12(b)(6))
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
Beeck v. Fed. Express Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2000) (opposition to discriminatory practice must be communicated)
St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch. v. EEOC, 117 F.3d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (standard for considering documents in motion to dismiss)