Pintro v. Genachowski, 273 F. Supp. 3d 264

Background

Plaintiff Linda Pintro, an African‑American woman of Haitian descent, was a Senior Legal Advisor at the FCC’s International Bureau and applied (or was not considered) for an Acting Deputy Division Chief interim appointment in early 2008; Robert Tanner (white male) was selected instead.
Pintro alleged Title VII race and national‑origin discrimination based on that non‑selection (and earlier raised other promotion claims), and sued the FCC in 2013; earlier summary judgment left only the Acting Deputy Division Chief claim.
Supervisor Kathryn O’Brien testified she did not consider Pintro because Pintro allegedly had difficulty handling multiple shifting priorities/deadlines and had interpersonal problems (described as “abrasiveness” and difficulties supervising an intern).
The FCC relied on O’Brien’s subjective perceptions and contemporaneous materials (emails, performance review) to justify the non‑selection; Pintro produced contemporaneous awards, positive evaluations, emails, and an amended performance rating that undercut or conflicted with O’Brien’s accounts.
The district court evaluated whether a reasonable jury could find O’Brien’s stated reasons pretextual and denied the FCC’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes about whether contemporaneous evidence supports O’Brien’s explanations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FCC’s nondiscriminatory reasons (performance, interpersonal issues) for not selecting Pintro for Acting Deputy are pretext for discrimination	Pintro contends no contemporaneous documentation supports O’Brien’s criticisms; contemporaneous awards, amended review, and emails show strong performance and cooperative conduct, permitting an inference of pretext	FCC (O’Brien) says subjective managerial judgments are legitimate and supported by contemporaneous emails and a performance review reflecting concerns	Held for Pintro on summary judgment motion: genuine disputes of material fact exist about pretext; summary judgment denied because a reasonable jury could infer discrimination
Whether courts must decide prima facie case once employer proffers nondiscriminatory reason	Pintro focused on showing pretext rather than establishing prima facie case	FCC framed its defense under McDonnell Douglas burden shifting	Court followed Circuit precedent: once employer proffers a nondiscriminatory reason, court evaluates whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of pretext rather than resolving prima facie elements
Weight to give subjective managerial reasons absent contemporaneous documentation	Pintro argues subjective reasons unsupported by contemporaneous records should be treated with caution and may be disbelieved	FCC argues subjective assessments are valid where supported by contemporaneous emails and testimony	Court held subjective explanations lacking uncontested contemporaneous support are treated cautiously; here, material factual disputes preclude summary judgment
Whether specific contemporaneous documents (Quetzal and KSDS emails; intern emails; performance reviews/awards) defeat employer’s justification	Pintro argues these documents rebut O’Brien’s claims and create factual disputes on credibility	FCC contends emails and initial review reflect the problems O’Brien described	Court found the contemporaneous record is susceptible to competing inferences and credibility determinations for the jury; some documents (e.g., amended review, intern emails, awards) particularly undermine employer’s account

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for assessing disparate‑treatment claims in absence of direct evidence)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff may show pretext and rely on disbelief of employer’s explanation to permit inference of discrimination)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (discussing role of factfinder’s disbelief of employer’s reasons)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir.) (once employer articulates nondiscriminatory reason, court focuses on whether plaintiff created triable issue on pretext)
Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344 (D.C. Cir.) (treat subjective explanations with caution at summary judgment; absence of contemporaneous documentation can support inference of pretext)
Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir.) (courts should not give undue weight to employer conclusions unsupported by contemporaneous materials)
Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for evaluating pretext under Brady)
Colbert v. Tapella, 649 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir.) (denying summary judgment where record lacked support for employer’s asserted reasons)
Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir.) (summary judgment must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard that mere scintilla of evidence insufficient to defeat summary judgment)