Ortiz-Diaz v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
961 F. Supp. 2d 104
D.D.C.2013Background
- Ortiz-Diaz, a former HUD-OIG criminal investigator, alleges Title VII discrimination based on race (Hispanic) and national origin (Puerto Rican) and retaliation after transfer denials and exclusion from meetings.
- He sought transfers to HUD-OIG field offices in the Northeast; those requests were denied, allegedly creating a discriminatory environment and affecting career advancement.
- In September 2010, McCarty allegedly ordered Ortiz-Diaz’s exclusion from DOJ joint meetings, limiting training and cross-agency interaction.
- In October 2010, Ortiz-Diaz sought a transfer to Albany, NY; McCarty denied the request despite some perceived support from Febles.
- Ortiz-Diaz filed an EEOC discrimination complaint on November 2, 2010; the EEOC defined Hispanic as national origin, not a race, limiting the investigation to national origin.
- After 180 days, Ortiz-Diaz filed this federal action asserting a retaliation claim not specified in the EEOC complaint; HUD-OIG moves to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ortiz-Diaz exhausted retaliation claim | Ortiz-Diaz argues retaliation relates to EEOC investigation of discrimination. | HUD-OIG contends retaliation not exhausted because not alleged or investigated by EEOC. | Retaliation claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Whether racial discrimination claim is exhausted or like/related to national origin claim | Racial discrimination claim is like/naturally related to EEOC national origin claim. | EEOC investigation limited to national origin; racial claim not exhausted. | Racial discrimination claim deemed like or reasonably related and permissible to proceed. |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible discrimination claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Complaint plausibly alleges adverse actions based on race/national origin and comparable treatment of others. | Defectively pled; lacks specifics linking actions to protected status. | Complaint sufficiently pleads status-based discrimination to survive dismissal. |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the remaining discrimination claims | Discovery is needed to develop the record and prove discrimination, requiring denial of summary judgment. | Case should proceed on administrative record; no discovery needed at this stage. | Summary judgment denied without prejudice to renewal after discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires plausible claim)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading need not include detailed facts but must nudge across line to plausibility)
- Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (de novo review for Title VII discrimination and proper burden shifting)
- Mangiapane v. Adams, 661 F.2d 1388 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (employee exhaustion tied to EEOC investigation; agency records control)
- Deravin v. Kerik, 335 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2003) (racial and national origin claims relation)