Ortiz-Diaz v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 641
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Samuel Ortiz-Diaz, a Hispanic HUD OIG investigator, worked at GS-14 in DC after promotion from field offices; he sought voluntary no-cost lateral transfers to investigative positions in Albany or Hartford in October 2010.
- HUD OIG (decisionmaker: John McCarty) denied the transfer requests, citing no investigative office in Albany and no vacancy in Hartford; Ortiz-Diaz alleged the denials were racially motivated and filed a Title VII suit in 2012.
- The district court granted summary judgment for HUD, holding a purely lateral transfer denial is not an "adverse employment action" under Title VII absent extraordinary, objective consequences.
- Ortiz-Diaz argued the denials harmed his promotion prospects (field work was allegedly "high profile") and that working for a Hispanic SAC in the field would improve his advancement chances; he also asserted comparator transfers were approved for others.
- The D.C. Circuit majority affirmed, applying circuit precedent that lateral-transfer denials ordinarily are not materially adverse absent objective, tangible harms; concurrences and a dissent disagreed on application and the proper summary-judgment posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a requested lateral transfer can be an "adverse employment action" under Title VII | Ortiz-Diaz: denial impaired promotion opportunities and thus was materially adverse | HUD: denial was a purely lateral transfer request denial with no objective loss in pay/benefits and so not actionable | Denial of a purely lateral transfer is not an adverse employment action absent objectively tangible, non-speculative harms; affirmed for HUD |
| Whether plaintiff’s sworn assertions that field work would enhance promotion prospects suffice to create a triable issue | Ortiz-Diaz: his declarations describe concrete career benefits from field transfer and alleged discriminatory decisionmaking | HUD: plaintiff’s assertions were conclusory/self-serving and lacked objective evidence; transfers to those locations required a grade downgrade | Court: bare assertions about improved prospects and subjective preferences insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether comparator evidence and evidence of supervisor bias created a genuine dispute of material fact | Ortiz-Diaz: pointed to allegedly approved transfers of others and complaints about the supervisor to show pretext | HUD: maintained denials were based on legitimate lack of vacancies/offices; contested comparators | Majority: even crediting plaintiff, record lacked objective evidence tying transfer denial to materially adverse consequences; summary judgment affirmed; dissent said such evidence could create triable issues |
| Proper application of the summary-judgment standard when credibility and factual disputes exist | Ortiz-Diaz: district court should have credited his evidence and compelled additional discovery on comparators | HUD: moved for summary judgment on the adverse-action threshold and legitimacy of reasons | Majority: applied circuit precedent and affirmed on the legal threshold; dissent: majority misapplied summary-judgment rules and should have allowed discovery/denied summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir.) (lateral transfers without objective detriment ordinarily not adverse actions)
- Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir.) (subjective dissatisfaction is not materially adverse; reassignment with significantly different responsibilities can be adverse)
- Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir.) (distinguishing demotions/substantive reassignments from lateral moves)
- Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir.) (some actions conclusively adverse; speculative harms insufficient)
- Ginger v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340 (D.C. Cir.) (schedule change causing objective harms can be materially adverse)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir.) (alleging effect on term/condition insufficient without showing impact)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (U.S.) (transfer labeled as such may be a demotion in substance; not analogous to lateral transfer)
- Randlett v. Shalala, 118 F.3d 857 (1st Cir.) (refusal to transfer not automatically outside Title VII; impact on plaintiff relevant)