Nurriddin v. O'Keefe, 40 F. Supp. 3d 104

Background

Nurriddin sued NASA seeking relief under Title VII race, sex, and religion discrimination and retaliation; prior claims were dismissed in Nurriddin I and Nurriddin II claims survived only as to remaining theories.
The core events span 1996–2004, including a denied noncompetitive GS-13 to GS-14 upgrade in 1998, and related perceived discriminatory actions by supervisors Phelps, McGee, and Owens.
Nurriddin received an $800 1997-1998 performance award despite a warning about missed deadlines and unresponsiveness in the same period.
He faced multiple reprimands, significant sick leave, AWOL designation in 2000, and a 2004 termination for medical unfitness and encumbrance of the position.
NASA later shifted to a pass/fail system for evaluations and conducted job searches, with OWCP workers' compensation ongoing for Nurriddin.
The court granted NASA summary judgment on liability, denying Nurriddin's claims, and denied his partial summary judgment on damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether law-of-the-case precludes review of the prima facie issue	Nurriddin argues law-of-the-case forecloses revisiting step one.	NASA argues law-of-the-case does not bar reconsideration under summary judgment standards.	Law-of-the-case does not preclude reconsideration; summary judgment review allowed.
Whether NASA's liability for discrimination/retaliation is supported	Nurriddin contends there is evidence of discriminatory/retaliatory motive.	NASA asserts no evidence shows discrimination or retaliatory intent; explanations are nondiscriminatory.	NASA is entitled to summary judgment; no triable issue of discrimination or retaliation.
Denial of the 1998 noncompetitive grade increase as discrimination or retaliation	Nurriddin claims denial while comparator received promotion signals discrimination/retaliation.	Plaintiff did not seek a promotion, lacked qualification, and comparators were not sufficiently similarly situated.	No prima facie case; no pretext shown; denial was nondiscriminatory.
Whether denial of travel to minority conferences was adverse action/retaliation	NASA travel-denial connected to protected activity; constitutes retaliation.	Travel denial not an adverse action; insufficient link to protected activity.	Travel denial not an adverse action; no retaliation established.
Termination in 2004 as discrimination or retaliation	Termination reflects discriminatory/retaliatory bias given his medical leave history.	Termination due to medical inability to work and need to unencumber the position; legitimate nonretaliatory reason.	Termination supported by legitimate nondiscriminatory rationale; no pretext shown.

Key Cases Cited

Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (establishes McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (prima facie case and burden shifting in Title VII cases)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework; ultimate issue is discrimination vel non)
Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 116 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (pretext and prima facie debates in discrimination cases)
Brady v. Office of the Sgt. at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (liminal role of prima facie case after adverse action)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard requires material injury/harm)
George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (title VII applies to federal agencies with similar restrictions)
Forman v. Small, 271 F.3d 285 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (qualification for promotion required for retaliation analysis)
Vickers v. Powell, 493 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (evidence of potential bias and decision-maker involvement relevance)
Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (comparators must be similarly situated for discrimination claim)
Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (discrimination inference from combination of prima facie case and proffered explanations)
Paquin v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 119 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (pretext framework authority)
Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (not every action against employee is actionable adverse action)