Prince Johnson v. Thomas Perez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9229
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Prince Johnson, an African-American veteran, was hired in April 2006 to a temporary Veterans Employment Specialist position at the Department of Labor (VETS); his supervisors included Gordon Burke (Director) and Pamela Langley (Division Chief).
- Johnson worked roughly six months; supervisors found his spreadsheet/data-entry work error-prone, late, and insufficiently independent; they provided training and feedback but reported defensive/argumentative reactions from Johnson.
- Langley recommended termination for unsatisfactory performance and attitude; Burke issued a termination memorandum citing poor performance and an argumentative demeanor and ended Johnson’s appointment in October 2006.
- Johnson sued under Title VII alleging hostile work environment and racially discriminatory discharge; the district court granted summary judgment for the Department on both claims; this court affirmed the hostile-work-environment dismissal and addressed the discharge claim on appeal.
- The Department justified termination on nondiscriminatory grounds (performance and demeanor); Johnson argued those reasons were pretext for race discrimination, pointing to coworker statements and assertions that he was "set up to fail."
- The D.C. Circuit held that, viewing the record in Johnson’s favor, no reasonable juror could find the Department’s stated reasons were pretextual and thus affirmed summary judgment for the Department.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson established that the Department’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons for termination were pretext for race discrimination | Johnson contended his supervisors’ explanations were untrue or contradicted by coworker evidence and his own testimony, showing pretext | The Department maintained termination was for legitimate reasons—poor job performance and argumentative response to feedback—and offered consistent contemporaneous explanations | No: record lacks evidence from which a reasonable jury could find pretext or that race was a motivating factor; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether conflicting or inconsistent employer explanations exist sufficient to create a triable issue | Johnson pointed to alleged inconsistencies in Burke’s statements (e.g., "supporting" Langley vs. performance-based reasons) | Department and court explained supporting a supervisor’s assessment is consistent with relying on performance reasons; Burke’s explanations were consistent across documents | No inconsistency shown; explanations are coherent and corroborated in record |
| Whether coworker and plaintiff testimony alone can create a genuine dispute of material fact | Johnson relied on coworkers’ favorable statements and his own testimony to dispute supervisors’ accounts | Department argued coworkers lacked supervisory vantage and did not refute the specific deficiencies cited | Such testimony here was insufficient because it didn’t address the particular performance/demeanor issues supervisors identified; credibility assessments were for a jury but evidence was not specific enough |
| Whether showing pretext alone (without more) can permit an inference of discrimination | Johnson argued that demonstrating pretext should suffice to infer discriminatory intent | Department argued pretext was not established; court noted pretext, if shown, can permit inference of discrimination but must be supported by evidence | Court clarified: disbelief of employer’s reasons can permit an inference of discrimination, but here pretext was not established on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff may fail to show discriminatory motive even if employer’s proffered reasons are disbelieved)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (en banc) (articulation of McDonnell Douglas and inference of discrimination from pretext)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (central question is whether employee produced sufficient evidence that employer’s reasons were not the actual reasons)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile-work-environment severity/pervasiveness standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute if reasonable jury could return verdict for nonmoving party)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment: burden on party opposing motion)
- Desmond v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (party testimony alone can be sufficient to survive summary judgment in discrimination cases)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (same point on self-serving testimony)
- Wheeler v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 812 F.3d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (comparator evidence can create triable issue on pretext)
- White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (subjective evaluations susceptible to manipulation may support pretext inference)