Poullard v. McDonald, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13327

Background

Leroy Poullard, an African-American GS-11 training specialist at the VA, performed supervisory/managerial tasks since 2006 but never received a permanent promotion or pay reclassification to GS-12/GS-13 despite positive evaluations and temporary GS-12 detail.
Poullard filed a 2007 EEO complaint alleging race, sex, disability discrimination and retaliation; later in 2010 he filed a formal complaint claiming continued uncompensated above-grade duties, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
Administrative process: federal employees must contact an EEO counselor within 45 days and may sue within 90 days of the agency/EEOC decision; many of Poullard’s allegations predated the filing window.
Key contested acts (post-filing window) included managerial duties without reclassification, denial of a desk audit, a letter of admonishment, denial of overtime recognition, and three arguably race-tinged remarks by supervisors (toy monkey comment, “sugar daddy,” and a comment about an earlier hairstyle).
The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, holding many claims time-barred, and on the timely claims finding no adverse employment action, no actionable retaliation, and no severe or pervasive harassment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / applicability of Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to claim	Poullard: his ongoing underpayment for duties is a discriminatory compensation practice triggering Ledbetter’s accrual on each paycheck and extending filing window/backpay	Secretary: core claim is failure-to-promote/reclassification (not a pay-setting decision) so Ledbetter does not apply; many claims fall outside administrative windows	Court: Even if treated as a pay claim under Ledbetter, Poullard failed to show discrimination on the merits; many claims remain time-barred
Disparate-treatment (race) — unequal pay/reclassification	Poullard: performed GS-13 managerial work but paid GS-11, seeks pay reclassification/back pay; points to supervisor Mailand doing GS-13 work	Secretary: no valid comparator; Poullard didn’t apply for promotion; classification specialist found duties appropriate for GS-11	Court: Plaintiff failed prima facie case—no appropriate similarly situated comparator (supervisor cannot be comparator) and no evidence of discriminatory motive; summary judgment affirmed
Retaliation for prior EEO activity	Poullard: filing 2007 complaint led to threats, admonishment, denial of compensation/reclassification — would deter a reasonable employee	Secretary: threats were unfulfilled and did not produce concrete injury; no causal evidence linking pay/classification to protected activity	Court: Threats/remarks were not materially adverse; racially tinged remarks were isolated and not severe/pervasive; no causal evidence of retaliation — summary judgment affirmed
Hostile work environment (race)	Poullard: cumulative conduct (pay disparity, admonishment, threats, race-tinged remarks) created hostile environment	Secretary: isolated, mild remarks and routine workplace disputes do not amount to severe/pervasive harassment	Court: Conduct was neither severe nor pervasive and lacked objective hostility; hostile work environment claim fails

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse-action standard must be materially adverse to a reasonable employee)
Daniels v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 701 F.3d 620 (limits scope of Fair Pay Act to traditional pay-setting/disparity claims)
Noel v. Boeing Co., 622 F.3d 266 (construes Fair Pay Act’s reach and warns against expanding it to non-pay employment decisions)
Schuler v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, LLP, 595 F.3d 370 (interprets "other practice" under Fair Pay Act narrowly)
Liu v. Cook County, 817 F.3d 307 (summary-judgment standard; construing facts in plaintiff’s favor)