Potts v. Howard University Hospital
843 F. Supp. 2d 101
D.D.C.2012Background
- Potts, a former Echocardiograph Technologist at Howard University Hospital, sues under USERRA for alleged discriminatory promotion denial due to military obligations.
- Plaintiff claims he provided documentation of military service and training obligations to support leave and need for accommodations.
- Spencer’s death left a vacancy for a senior ET; Williams was hired to fill Spencer’s position in May 1998.
- Plaintiff took mandatory reserve military training Sept–Dec 1998; Williams became permanent replacement in Aug 1999.
- Plaintiff alleges he was denied the promotion to the senior ET position due to his military service; he first filed complaints with DCOHR and EEOC in 1999.
- Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing no evidence shows promotion denial was based on military status; plaintiff cannot provide direct or circumstantial evidence of antimilitary animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Potts shown prima facie USERRA discrimination. | Potts claims promotion denied due to military service. | No evidence promotion denial was based on military status. | Plaintiff failed to show military status was a substantial factor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (establishes prima facie USERRA standard and burden)
- Lisdahl v. Mayo Found., 633 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 2011) (military status as motivating factor shown by direct/circumstantial evidence)
- Dees v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC, 368 F. App’x 49 (11th Cir. 2010) (requires evidence of antimilitary animus in employment decision)
- Bloomgarden v. Coyer, 479 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (precludes reliance on unsupported conclusory statements in summary judgment)
- Durant v. MillerCoors, LLC, 415 F. App’x 927 (10th Cir. 2011) (no evidence of antimilitary influence in firing decisions)