Noisette v. Geithner, 211 F. Supp. 3d 73

Background

Andre Noisette, an African‑American IRS Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agent, was selected in Sept. 2006 for an SSA post in St. Petersburg/Tampa and initially told he would get a one‑time 10% pay increase tied to the new payband system.
CID later told Noisette the pay increase required a competitive reassignment; he chose to undergo competition rather than accept the job without the 10% increase, was interviewed, and lost to Angelo Troncoso after the panel process.
Less than two months later Noisette applied for and (as the sole candidate) was selected for an SSA post in Miami and received the 10% pay increase.
Earlier in 2006 Noisette had investigated and participated in resolving an EEO complaint by trainee Sarah Peebles; that matter led to supervisory discipline and controversy involving senior CID managers (Barney, Jardini, Imhoff), and separate litigation by Barney.
Noisette sued under Title VII claiming race discrimination and retaliation (pretext and mixed‑motive theories) based on his “deselection” (loss of the 10% increase) and subsequent nonselection in the competitive process; mixed‑motive retaliation claims were abandoned after Nassar.
The court granted summary judgment for the Government, finding no competent evidence that race or retaliation motivated the deselection or nonselection.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation of Noisette’s initial selection / loss of 10% pay increase was discriminatory or retaliatory	Noisette contends CID unlawfully rescinded the 10% increase (or compelled competition) in retaliation for his EEO involvement and because of race; points to CID’s treatment of others (Barney), HR emails, and a similarly situated white employee	Government argues selection was changed because payband rules required a competitive reassignment for the 10% increase; Noisette voluntarily chose to pursue competition and there is no evidence others were considered in initial selection	Court: No pretext or causal link; no evidence decisionmakers knew Noisette played a non‑ministerial role in Peebles matter; summary judgment for Government
Whether the competitive non‑selection (post‑interview loss to Troncoso) was discriminatory or retaliatory	Noisette says his qualifications were superior and panel’s negative evaluation was pretextual (lack of contemporaneous notes)	Government presents interview panel testimony describing poor performance and preference for Troncoso; no evidence decision‑maker harbored animus or was influenced by biased actors	Court: Panel’s credibility and judgment not for court to second‑guess absent strong showing; differences in qualifications not dispositive; no evidence of "cat’s paw" causation; summary judgment for Government
Whether evidence of CID’s treatment of other employees (Barney, Peebles) supports inference of discrimination/retaliation against Noisette	Noisette argues pattern of discrimination/retaliation (Barney’s punishment, Peebles dispute) supports inference against him	Government: animus and adverse treatment were directed at Barney; record shows Noisette acted in a ministerial investigatory role and senior managers lacked awareness of any more	Court: Even assuming adverse treatment of Barney, facts do not connect that conduct to actions against Noisette; no sufficient similarity or notice to decisionmakers
Admissibility/weight of HR emails and lack of interview notes as proof of pretext	Noisette contends post‑hoc HR emails and missing notes show after‑the‑fact justification and unreliable panel assessments	Government: HR emails reflect evolving clarification of new payband rules; missing notes do not undermine consistent panel recollections and contemporaneous HR communications	Court: Emails reflect clarification, not manufactured pretext; absence of notes insufficient to create genuine dispute given consistent panel statements and Noisette’s own admissions

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
University of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retaliation claims require but‑for causation)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (disbelief of employer’s reasons can permit inference of intentional discrimination)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s‑paw liability requires proximate causation from biased subordinate to decisionmaker)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (court need not decide prima facie case once employer offers legitimate reason)
Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344 (qualification gaps must be substantial to infer discrimination)
Fischbach v. D.C. Dept. of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180 (court will not reweigh employer’s personnel choices)