962 F. Supp. 2d 21
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Ramseur, a DOL staff assistant, applied for a GS-11 position in CRC.
- The vacancy required ‘specialized experience’ in EEO/Title VII-related duties.
- Ramseur was deemed unqualified for the GS-11 job on Oct 26, 2009.
- Plaintiff alleges the specialized experience was unrelated and added to block her qualification.
- She contends supervisor Lamond created the requirement to prevent her from obtaining the job.
- Plaintiff later claimed a lower performance rating, lack of a bonus, and hostile treatment in 2009-2010; she filed an EEOC complaint and then a Title VII suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination: disparate impact and disparate treatment | Ramseur alleges neutral policy disproportionately disqualifies women/AA. | Disparate impact claims require proper pleading and evidence; claim should be barred if not exhausted. | Count I survives as both disparate treatment and disparate impact. |
| Retaliation claims viability | Defendant retaliated via lower rating and hostile environment after protected activity. | Some retaliation claims premised on pre-protected-activity conduct; delay/interference with EEOC not actionable. | Count II dismissed; at least one retaliation theory rejected on the merits. |
| Hostile work environment retaliatory claim | Yelling and tactics created abusive environment after speaking about denial of promotion. | Need for extreme conduct; may not meet standard at this stage. | Count III survives (hostile environment not yet dismissed). |
| Workplace bullying as standalone claim | Bullying constitutes Title VII violation. | Bullying not independently cognizable; may be part of hostile environment. | Count IV dismissed and treated as part of Count III. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (2010) (establishes disparate-impact framework and causation proof)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (discusses business necessity and alternatives in disparate impact)
- Watkins v. City of Chicago, 992 F. Supp. 971 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (disparate impact related to disparate treatment claim)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (tests for whether administrative charge covers related claims)
- Howard v. Gutierrez, 571 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2008) (scope of administrative investigations and related claims)