Ortiz-Diaz v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
75 F. Supp. 3d 561
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Samuel Ortiz-Diaz, a Hispanic/Puerto Rican HUD OIG Criminal Investigator, sought voluntary no-cost transfers to Albany, NY and Hartford, CT but was denied.
- Ortiz-Diaz had relocated previously (San Juan → Albany → Washington, D.C.) and had agreed to remain in D.C. for a period after receiving promotion and relocation benefits.
- Agency's voluntary transfer program allows employees to request reassignment when vacancies exist and expressly warns approvals are not guaranteed.
- Agency contends there were no available positions in Hartford or Albany at relevant times; an email announcing Hartford openings was mistakenly sent and positions would have required pay/grade changes.
- Ortiz-Diaz alleges denials were racially motivated because similarly situated white investigators obtained transfers; he claims denial harmed career opportunities but produced only speculative evidence.
- The Court granted defendant's summary judgment motion, denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery as unnecessary, and dismissed the claim for failure to show an adverse employment action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of lateral transfer is an adverse employment action under Title VII | Denial of requested transfers (to be near family and under Hispanic SAC Febles) materially harmed Ortiz-Diaz's career opportunities and prospects for promotion | A purely lateral transfer denial is not adverse absent objective, materially adverse consequences; here transfers were discretionary, positions may have reduced pay/grade, and plaintiff offers only speculation | Court held denial was not an adverse employment action because plaintiff produced only speculative evidence of career harm; summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to create genuine dispute for summary judgment | Transfer denials, comparator patterns, and alleged past approvals for white employees show discriminatory motive and disparate treatment | Plaintiff failed to produce non-speculative, probative evidence tying denials to discrimination or showing objectively tangible harm | Court held evidence was merely speculative/conclusory and insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether further discovery (motion to compel) could change the outcome | Discovery on comparators, vacancy announcements, communications, prior complaints, and workplace statements could reveal discriminatory patterns | Even if obtained, such discovery would not show an adverse employment action necessary to prevail | Court denied motion to compel as irrelevant to the dispositive legal deficiency and not likely to alter summary judgment outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and nonmovant must present more than a scintilla of evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party moving for summary judgment may show absence of genuine dispute by pointing to the record)
- Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (denial of a lateral transfer is not actionable absent materially adverse consequences)
- Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (requiring objectively tangible harm for lateral transfer claims)
- Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (examples of transfers accompanied by diminished responsibilities that can be adverse)
- Williams v. R.H. Donnelley, Corp., 368 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2004) (employee's desire to live in a particular city is not an objective job-related attribute creating an adverse action)
- Dilenno v. Goodwill Indus. of Mid-E. Pa., 162 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 1998) (similar holding on subjective desire to relocate)
- Pub. Health Research Grp. v. FDA, 185 F.3d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data do not create a triable issue)