Nguyen v. McDonough, 3:23-cv-05790

Plaintiff, Dr. My Gia Nguyen, a Vietnamese-American physician at the VA, alleged discrimination based on national origin, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII.
Disciplinary actions against Nguyen included a 2018 suspension, performance reviews rated as “marginal” or “satisfactory,” placement on improvement plans (FPPE), a reprimand, and clean sweep-related discipline.
Nguyen claimed disparate treatment compared to colleagues for similar conduct after disciplinary actions and alleged such actions were motivated by discrimination or retaliation for EEO activity.
Defendant (the VA, represented by Denis McDonough) moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for all actions taken.
The EEOC previously granted summary judgment to the VA regarding Nguyen's earlier EEO complaints; Nguyen then filed suit in federal court, representing himself for much of the proceedings.
The court decided the motion under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and evaluated each instance of alleged discrimination/retaliation individually.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2018, 2020 disciplinary actions (suspension, reviews, FPPE, reprimands) constituted disparate treatment under Title VII	VA penalized Nguyen more harshly than similarly situated colleagues due to national origin	Disciplinary actions were based on legitimate, documented misconduct and performance issues	For Defendant; no prima facie case/proof of pretext
Whether Plaintiff faced retaliation for EEO activity	Adverse actions (including performance reviews, reprimands) followed soon after EEO complaints	Timing coincidental; legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for each action	For Defendant; no causation or pretext established
Whether there was a hostile work environment based on national origin	Workplace discipline and scrutiny were pervasive and rooted in bias against Nguyen as Vietnamese-American	No conduct was based on national origin; no severe or pervasive harassment	For Defendant; no evidence of actionable harassment
Admissibility/significance of performance reviews as adverse employment actions	Poor reviews harmed Nguyen’s career reputation and prospects	Reviews had no material impact on compensation or employment terms	For Defendant; no materially adverse action shown

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in Title VII claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact)
Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden on employer to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons)
Campbell v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 892 F.3d 1005 (adverse employment action under Title VII)
Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (prima facie elements for Title VII retaliation)
Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092 (mediocre performance review alone is not adverse action if no material harm)
Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371 (timing and causation in retaliation claims)