Patricia Brooks v. Susan Grundmann
409 U.S. App. D.C. 299
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Patricia Brooks, an African-American woman, worked as a Team Leader at the Merit Systems Protection Board (IRM) since 1998 and faced supervisor conduct beginning in 2005.
- Brooks alleged hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII based on race and sex, arising from interactions with supervisor An-Minh Hwang and deputy Nick Ngo.
- Incidents included a hostile-yet-isolated outburst by Hwang, demeaning behavior by Ngo, and a sequence of performance ratings and EEO complaints through 2008.
- IRM reorganized in May 2008; Brooks retained a non-supervisory role and later received an Unacceptable rating and entered a Performance Improvement Plan.
- Brooks amended her district court complaint in February 2009 to add race- and sex-based hostile work environment claims; the Board moved for summary judgment and the district court granted it.
- The district court held no reasonable jury could find the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks’ hostile work environment claim meets severity/pervasiveness standard | Brooks argues conduct was severe and pervasive | Board contends conduct was unprofessional but not severe or pervasive | No, not sufficiently severe or pervasive |
| Whether the district court erred by not addressing Brooks’ retaliation claim | Brooks asserts discrete-acts retaliation supports relief | District court treated and dismissed the retaliation content as inadequate | No reversible error; discrete-acts claim not properly pleaded |
| Whether a discrete-acts retaliation claim can be pursued alongside a hostile environment claim | Plaintiff could plead both theories in alternative | District court and Rule 11 require clear pleading of discrete-acts | Brooks cannot prevail on combination here; she failed to preserve discrete-acts claim |
| Whether the district court should have allowed amendment to plead discrete-acts following Baird decisions | Amendment should be permitted to preserve claim | Amendment not properly sought; district court decision stands | No remand to permit amendment; Brooks forfeited right to amend on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, 712 F.3d 572 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (severe or pervasive standard for hostile environment, conjunctive/disjunctive analysis)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (standard for hostile environment claims)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (isolated incidents generally not actionable absent extreme severity)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (totality of circumstances; frequency, severity, and impact on work)
- Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2012) (cumulative workplace hostility requiring more than petty insults)
- Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (discrete acts vs. hostile environment framework distinction)
- Bhatti v. Trs. of Bos. Univ., 659 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2011) (selective enforcement and nonphysical conduct as non-actionable)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (permitted combining discrete acts with hostile environment theory under certain conditions)
- Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (preservation of retaliation claims raised in opposition to summary judgment)
- City of Harper Woods Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Olver, 589 F.3d 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (pleading and amendment standards in civil rights actions)