Ogunsula v. Staffing Now, Inc.
271 F. Supp. 3d 310
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Veronica W. Ogunsula, an African American woman over 40 with Nigerian surname and >20 years’ administrative experience, applied to Staffing Now (a temp agency) in July–Sept. 2014 and interviewed in September 2014.
- After an initial positive phone call with a manager (Van Landingham) and an in-person interview with recruiter Ekundayo, Plaintiff completed forms and believed she was “hired” for temporary assignments.
- Plaintiff was not contacted for any assignments; her follow-up calls went largely unanswered and she received no placements.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge in December 2014 asserting race, national origin, and age discrimination and received a right-to-sue notice. She filed this suit in April 2015 pro se.
- Discovery occurred over an extended period; Defendant moved for summary judgment and Plaintiff moved for additional discovery under Rule 56(d). The court denied the Rule 56(d) showing and granted defendant’s summary judgment motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie failure-to-hire discrimination claim (Title VII/ADEA) | Ogunsula contends she was effectively hired after interview and was not sent out for assignments because of race, national origin, and age | Staffing Now argues Plaintiff cannot identify any specific open position for which she applied, was qualified, and was rejected, so she cannot make a prima facie case | Court: Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a specific vacancy or rejection; no prima facie case established; summary judgment for Defendant |
| Whether further discovery under Rule 56(d) was warranted to oppose summary judgment | Ogunsula sought additional discovery, asserting Defendant had not produced info about positions/criteria | Staffing Now opposed; court records show discovery was lengthy and Plaintiff had opportunities to seek discovery earlier | Court: Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) submission failed to specify discoverable facts or explain why they couldn’t be produced earlier; 56(d) denied |
| Whether record evidence supports an inference of discriminatory motive | Plaintiff points to conversational remarks and lack of callbacks to infer discrimination | Defendant points to Plaintiff’s deposition admissions (no discriminatory remarks, inability to identify specific positions) and absence of evidence of discriminatory motive | Court: Plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient to show any discriminatory statements or motive; no reasonable jury could infer discrimination |
| Whether ADEA requires but-for causation and affects plaintiff’s burden | Plaintiff asserts age discrimination alongside race and national origin claims | Defendant invokes ADEA standards (but-for causation) and parallels between ADEA and Title VII frameworks | Court applies Gross and related precedent; Plaintiff failed to meet the requisite showing under ADEA (and Title VII) |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139 (ADEA prima facie elements in failure-to-hire context)
- Wilson v. Cox, 753 F.3d 244 (applying Title VII/ADEA analysis at summary judgment)