Nunnally v. District of Columbia
243 F. Supp. 3d 55
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ronda Nunnally, an MPD lieutenant, alleges retaliation after reporting sexual harassment and other employment complaints (2004–2009); she identifies 12 adverse actions (reassignments, denials of leave, delays in hearings, forced disability retirement, and MPD statements to prospective employers).
- Claims asserted under Title VII, the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA), and the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA).
- Magistrate Judge Robinson recommended: grant summary judgment on a few discrete theories, deny summary judgment otherwise, and impose spoliation-related discovery sanctions in the form of an adverse-inference instruction (form to be set at trial).
- The District and Nunnally filed objections; the district court reviewed de novo the dispositive portions and for clear error non-dispositive rulings.
- The Court largely adopted the R&R: rejected claim/issue preclusion, denied summary judgment on most Title VII/DCHRA retaliation claims (with a narrow grant as to one sick‑leave reporting requirement), limited DCWPA claims to disclosures/retaliation after May 7, 2008, and upheld an adverse‑inference sanction for negligent spoliation of MPD emails.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim/issue preclusion from prior D.C. Superior action | Prior verdict does not bar these retaliation claims; different time period and different nucleus of facts | Prior Superior Court judgment forecloses overlapping claims | No preclusion: record insufficient to show overlap; present suit differs in time and subject matter |
| Title VII / DCHRA retaliation — prima facie and temporal causation for delays in hearings | Nunnally contends her protected complaints temporally overlap with delays in workers’ comp and retirement hearings | D.C. argues no causal nexus shown | Court: temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment on delays claim; denial of summary judgment sustained for that theory |
| Title VII / DCHRA — employer’s legitimate reason and pretext (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | Nunnally points to disparate treatment and circumstantial evidence undermining D.C.’s stated reasons (e.g., reassignment patterns) | D.C. proffers legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (pending subordinate complaint, reorganization/business judgment) and urges summary judgment | Court: Denied summary judgment on most adverse actions (evidence could allow a jury to find pretext). Summary judgment granted only as to weekly sick‑leave sign‑in requirement |
| DCWPA — statute of limitations and contributing‑factor causation | Nunnally argues 2010 amendments apply retroactively and her DCWPA claims relating to disclosures about her treatment are timely back to May 7, 2008; some post‑2008 acts were contributed to by disclosures | D.C. contends many DCWPA claims are time‑barred and lack causation/knowledge by decisionmakers | Court: 2010 amendment treated as retroactive; DCWPA claims limited to retaliation after May 7, 2008. Three DCWPA theories proceed to trial (delays in hearings, forced disability retirement, MPD statements to prospective employers); leave‑denial claim dismissed for lack of causation evidence |
| Spoliation / sanctions for lost emails | Nunnally sought sanctions; argued missing emails were relevant to causation and knowledge | D.C. denied negligent loss/destroying of relevant emails and disputed relevance | Court: Magistrate’s findings not clearly erroneous; D.C. negligently failed to preserve emails in anticipation of litigation; adverse‑inference sanction appropriate (exact instruction reserved for trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for indirect proof in discrimination cases)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (but‑for causation in Title VII retaliation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (scope of Title VII anti‑retaliation protection)
- Baumann v. District of Columbia, 795 F.3d 209 (applicability of federal retaliation law principles to D.C. claims)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (McDonnell Douglas burden at summary judgment)
- Coleman v. District of Columbia, 794 F.3d 49 (DCWPA contributing‑factor causation standard)
- Freeman v. District of Columbia, 60 A.3d 1131 (DCWPA: retaliation for protected disclosures)
- Gerlich v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 711 F.3d 161 (adverse‑inference standard when destroyed evidence impedes proof)
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (litigation‑hold and preservation obligations for ESI)
- Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 62 F.3d 1469 (inherent power sanctions for discovery misconduct)