287 F.R.D. 103
D.D.C.2012Background
- Richie, a USDA employee, sued Secretary Vilsack alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after being reassigned from a supervisory GS-14 role to a non-supervisory GS-14 position.
- No discovery had occurred; USDA moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, while Richie moved for discovery before summary judgment under Rule 56(d).
- USDA submitted declarations criticizing Richie’s work, asserting she requested the new position, and noting that several white employees were reassigned to non-supervisory roles at the same time.
- Richie submitted a declaration asserting strong performance, disputing the claimed criticisms and the asserted request for a new position.
- The court concluded summary judgment was premature and granted Richie’s Rule 56(d) discovery motion for both discrimination and retaliation claims, noting lack of opportunity for discovery.
- The court ordered the defendant to answer by December 19, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery is warranted before ruling on summary judgment | Discovery is needed to test declarations and uncover pretext/retaliation. | Discovery is unnecessary; dismissal/summary judgment should proceed. | Rule 56(d) discovery granted for both discrimination and retaliation claims. |
| Whether the complaint states a Title VII discrimination/retaliation claim under notice pleading | Plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation at the pleading stage. | Requisite prima facie pleading is required for such claims. | Dismissal denied; discovery and merits to be developed; not resolved on the merits at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (notice pleading—not require prima facie case at pleading stage)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must have factual matter plausible on their face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (plausibility standard applying to complaints)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine disputes of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden of proof for summary judgment shifting to non-movant)
- Convertino v. DOJ, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Rule 56(d) relief granted liberally when discovery is warranted)
- Berkeley v. Home Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (diligence requirement for Rule 56(d) relief)
- Strang v. U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, 864 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (role of discovery in supporting plausibility/claims)
- Dunning v. Quander, 508 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (considerations for testing declarants' veracity in Rule 56(d) context)
- Chappell-Johnson v. Powell, 440 F.3d 484 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (discovery may uncover direct evidence of discrimination)
- Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Title VII complaint need not allege a prima facie case)
- Strang, 864 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (recognition of discovery considerations in public policy)