Rand v. Secretary of the Treasury
816 F. Supp. 2d 70
D.D.C.2011Background
- Rand, a GS-13 management analyst at Treasury, sues the Secretary of the Treasury (in official capacity) under Title VII and the ADEA; Secretary moves to dismiss or for summary judgment based on untimely EEO filing.
- Rand alleged others at GS-14 level performed equal work but were paid at GS-14 while she remained at GS-13 from 1998–2002.
- Rand sought a desk audit to trigger an accretion of duties promotion; audit never occurred; she pursued an EEO complaint seeking retroactive promotion and back pay.
- Rand became aware of discrimination on June 30, 1999; was denied a promotion in late 2000; she did not contact an EEO counselor until August 16, 2002.
- The court analyzes exhaustion and Ledbetter Act implications, and concludes the claims are not viable; desk audit is not an adverse action; Ledbetter does not revive a nonpromotion claim; summary judgment for Secretary is appropriate.
- The opinion treats Title VII and ADEA claims together and discusses the Ledbetter Act’s scope and purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the desk audit claim is an adverse action. | Rand contends desk audit denial constitutes discrimination. | Secretary argues desk audit denial is not an adverse action. | Desk audit claim dismissed as non-adverse action. |
| Whether Rand's pay-discrimination claim was timely exhausted. | Rand asserts Ledbetter Act tolls the time. | Ledbetter Act does not revive her nonpromotion claim; untimely filing. | Untimely under 45-day rule; Ledbetter Act inapplicable to revive. |
| Whether Ledbetter Act applies to promotion-based discrimination claims. | Ledbetter Act covers pay discrimination; applies to her claim. | Ledbetter Act does not apply to promotion-denial claims. | Ledbetter Act does not revive promotion-based discrimination claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (U.S. 2007) (Ledbetter Act response to pay discrimination timing)
- Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 595 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (promotion decision not a compensation discrimination under Ledbetter)
- Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (discriminatory refusal to promote requires evidence of denied promotion)
- Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (principles for discriminatory nonpromotion claims)
- Johnson v. District of Columbia, 632 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (Ledbetter Act applicability to government employment)
- Lipscomb v. Mabus, 699 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.D.C. 2010) ( Ledbetter Act scope and nonpromotion alignment)