919 F. Supp. 2d 93
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Albert V. Peyus, Jr., a 65-year-old Aviation Safety Inspector, sues the Secretary of Transportation alleging age discrimination and retaliation under ADEA and Title VII.
- Plaintiff has worked for the FAA since 1996 and was assigned to FAA’s AFS-52 team under Livack starting in 2007.
- Plaintiff alleges a long list of discriminatory and retaliatory acts by Livack, including travel-related issues, data program management, and communication problems.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC complaint in July 2010 and later filed suit on November 21, 2011 seeking damages, reassignment, and costs.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on March 5, 2012; the court granted the motion.
- The court addresses exhaustion, then evaluates ADEA discrimination and Title VII retaliation, granting summary judgment for the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff exhausted pre-May 27, 2010 age-discrimination claims | Peyus contends some pre-2010 acts are actionable | Pre-2010 acts were not exhausted | Claims pre-dating May 27, 2010 are unexhausted and dismissed. |
| Whether plaintiff shows ADEA age discrimination | Aging status influenced actions against him | Defendant offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons | No genuine dispute; no adverse action shown attributable to age; summary judgment for defendant. |
| Whether plaintiff shows Title VII retaliation | Reassignment and actions followed protected activity | Legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for actions | Plaintiff failed to show pretext; retaliation claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts and timely exhaustion rules for discrimination claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (preliminary plausibility standard for complaints)
- Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (court may consider attached or incorporated materials in Rule 12(b)(6))
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (summary judgment framework for Title VII retaliation)