Parker v. Secretary United States Department of Veterans Affairs
676 F. App'x 101
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Parker, a Liberian-born Black former VA social work associate, was fired after an Administrative Investigation Board (AIB) sustained findings that she involved a patient in staff disputes, over-disclosed personal information to a patient, and sent inappropriate emails following incidents with coworker Denise Holmes on June 23, 2011.
- Parker filed multiple EEO complaints and appeals to the MSPB; she consolidated three district-court actions asserting Title VII and ADA claims for race/national-origin discrimination, disability failure-to-accommodate, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
- The District Court dismissed the failure-to-accommodate ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the VAMC as a defendant, leaving Secretary McDonald as defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).
- The District Court granted summary judgment to McDonald: it found Parker established a prima facie retaliation claim but failed to show the VA’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext; it also found Parker failed to make out prima facie race or national-origin discrimination or hostile work environment claims.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit summarily affirmed, agreeing Parker showed some retaliation elements but produced no evidence undermining the VA’s stated reasons, and failed to offer more than suspicion for racial or national-origin motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parker established a prima facie retaliation claim and showed pretext | Parker argued her prior protected EEO activity caused adverse actions and that supervisors/AIB conspired to "botch" investigations, showing pretext | VA conceded some protected activity but asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each adverse action (investigation findings, policy violations, procedural rationales) | Court: Parker made a prima facie retaliation showing but failed to show the VA's reasons were pretext; summary judgment for McDonald affirmed |
| Whether Parker established race and national-origin discrimination | Parker pointed to generalized statements and procedural errors as evidence of bias | VA argued adverse actions were based on AIB findings and non-discriminatory explanations, not racial or national-origin animus | Court: Parker offered only suspicion and vague references, no specific evidence of discriminatory motive; summary judgment for McDonald affirmed |
| Whether Parker established hostile work environment | Parker asserted cumulative adverse acts and biased treatment created a hostile environment | VA maintained actions were discrete, nondiscriminatory employment decisions based on conduct and investigation results | Court: Parker failed to show intentional discrimination or conduct meeting hostile-environment standards; claim dismissed |
| Whether Parker exhausted administrative remedies for ADA failure-to-accommodate | Parker maintained she raised accommodation issues in administrative filings | McDonald moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Court: District Court correctly dismissed the ADA accommodation claim for failure to properly exhaust; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial summary judgment burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment—genuine dispute standard)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (showing pretext requires exposing weaknesses/inconsistencies in employer’s reasons)
- Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Daniels v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 776 F.3d 181 (elements of Title VII retaliation claim)
- Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (elements for prima facie discrimination case)