Patzy v. Hochberg
217 F. Supp. 3d 357
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Rodrigo A. Patzy, a Latino male and GS-13 Portfolio Manager at the Export-Import Bank, alleges race discrimination after multiple GS-14 director positions were filled by white females and one Latino male while he remained at GS-13.
- Patzy served in Iraq (2008); upon return he worked under Miguel Cornejo, who rated him a “Top Performer” in prior evaluations.
- In 2012 Patzy interviewed twice for a GS-14 vacancy; selection panels recommended white candidates (one declined; another later accepted), and Patzy was not selected. Interviewers noted weaknesses reviewing basic financial statements.
- Patzy filed an internal discrimination complaint in September 2012. His November 2012 rating was lowered from “Top Performer” to “Excellent,” which he contends cost him eligibility for a Quality Step Increase.
- Procedural posture: Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or for summary judgment; Patzy sought discovery. The court denied dismissal as to the Title VII discrimination claim (discovery warranted) but granted dismissal of the retaliation claim; summary judgment on discrimination was denied without prejudice pending discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patzy pleaded a plausible Title VII race-discrimination claim | Patzy alleges he is Latino, suffered adverse employment actions (denied promotions, lowered rating), and facts permit an inference of discrimination (panels, promotions of others) | Bank argues Patzy failed to plead facts showing adverse action giving rise to an inference of discrimination and that interview performance justified nonselection | Denied dismissal: complaint pleads sufficient facts to survive 12(b)(6); discovery appropriate before summary judgment |
| Whether the lowered 2012 performance rating is actionable retaliation under Title VII | Patzy contends the lowered rating followed his discrimination complaint and cost him a pay increase, constituting retaliation | Bank says the rating did not cause sufficiently tangible, material harm to deter a reasonable employee | Dismissed: court finds lowered rating speculative as to a tangible, materially adverse effect and not actionable retaliation |
| Whether summary judgment is proper on discrimination claim without further discovery | Patzy seeks discovery to develop evidence supporting discrimination | Bank seeks judgment based on the administrative record and asserted nondiscriminatory reasons | Denied without prejudice: summary judgment premature; discovery warranted per Title VII precedent |
| Standard for material adversity in retaliation claims | Patzy relies on link between complaint and adverse rating causing lost pay eligibility | Bank relies on Burlington and related caselaw that requires significant, tangible harm to be materially adverse | Court applies Burlington framework and concludes plaintiff failed to show material adversity here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (antiretaliation provision protects against materially adverse actions that would deter a reasonable worker)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute of material fact standard)
- Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (lowered performance rating can be adverse when linked to prior pattern of awards)
- Bridgeforth v. Jewell, 721 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (distinguishing Weber: lack of predictable link between evaluation and awards defeats retaliation claim)
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim)
- Ikossi v. Dep’t of Navy, 516 F.3d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (district courts should allow discovery in Title VII employment cases)