Pierson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127623
D.D.C.2011Background
- Pierson, a lesbian, was hired by WMATA as a temporary employee in March 2005.
- In late June 2005, Pierson reported sexual harassment by coworker Baines and alleged a hostile work environment.
- On July 1, 2005, Pierson was terminated; she filed an EEOC charge alleging retaliation for protesting discrimination.
- The Separation Personnel Action Report noted a Do Not Rehire directive against Pierson.
- After termination, Pierson faced an overpaid vacation benefits dispute; WMATA settled for $150 in May 2007.
- Pierson filed this Title VII retaliation action in March 2007 (amended August 2010) asserting termination, non-rehire, and pursuit for overpaid vacation benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pierson exhausted overpaid vacation claim | Pierson exhausted via scope of EEOC investigation. | Overpaid vacation claim not raised in EEOC charge and not within scope. | Pierson failed to exhaust; grant summary judgment on overpaid vacation claim. |
| Whether Pierson exhausted non-rehire claim | Non-rehire grew from termination claim within EEOC scope. | No exhaustion requirement because unrelated to initial charge. | Pierson exhausted; non-rehire claim not barred. |
| Whether Pierson's termination retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Temporal proximity and knowledge support retaliation pretext. | Legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination; no pretext shown. | A reasonable juror could infer retaliation; denial of summary judgment on termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts require separate timing for exhaustion)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation analysis requires causal link and motive)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (prima facie framework and pretext evaluation in retaliation)
- Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (prima facie burden and evidentiary standards for retaliation)
- Thomas v. Vilsack, 718 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2010) (exhaustion scope and growing-out-of claims)
- Wedow v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 442 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2006) (scope of investigation and post-complaint retaliation)
- Smith-Thompson v. District of Columbia, 657 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2009) (scope of investigation and continuing retaliation)
- Caudle v. District of Columbia, 804 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2011) (evidence of knowledge supports retaliation inference)
- Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (prima facie case and pretext framework in retaliation cases)
- Regan v. Grill Concepts-D.C., Inc., 338 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2004) (close temporal proximity as evidence of causation)
- Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2007) (protected activity does not require magic words)