Robinson v. District of Columbia
275 F. Supp. 3d 95
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Mark E. Robinson, an MPD sergeant and long-time ATEU instructor/operator, was detailed full-time to the Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit (ATEU) from 2008 until MPD civilianized the unit in 2011.
- After civilianization, MPD ceased assigning sworn officers to ATEU on a full-time basis but continued an ATEU Overtime Program allowing officers to work ATEU details part-time for pay.
- Robinson was reassigned to Special Events in 2011; he alleges the reassignment and repeated denials of his requests to work ATEU overtime were motivated by race and retaliation for prior complaints.
- Robinson repeatedly requested ATEU overtime between February 2014 and May 2015 and was denied; he claims a history of earning large amounts of ATEU overtime (1,500–2,000 hours/year) and contends denial caused substantial lost pay.
- MPD contends the reassignment was nondiscriminatory (civilianization) and argues that the transfer and/or denial of overtime are not adverse employment actions sufficient under Title VII and the DCHRA.
- The court granted summary judgment to MPD on the discriminatory/retaliatory transfer claim (Robinson did not rebut civilianization as the nondiscriminatory reason), but denied summary judgment on the overtime-denial claims, finding triable issues as to whether denial was an adverse action and whether discrimination/retaliation caused it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robinson's reassignment from full-time ATEU is an adverse employment action supporting discrimination/retaliation claims | Reassignment and denial to return were adverse and driven by racial discrimination/retaliation | Reassignment resulted from legitimate civilianization of ATEU (non-discriminatory); no sworn full-time ATEU positions remained | Court: MPD articulated civilianization as legitimate reason; Robinson failed to show pretext — summary judgment for MPD on transfer claims |
| Whether repeated denials of ATEU overtime constituted an adverse employment action | Denials deprived Robinson of substantial overtime pay and altered employment terms; he repeatedly sought overtime and supervisors knew of it | Denial of overtime is not per se adverse; average ATEU overtime was less than Robinson's claimed historic hours | Court: Denial of significant overtime can be adverse; a reasonable jury could find Robinson sought and was denied substantial overtime — denial of summary judgment on overtime claims |
| Whether MPD offered non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory reasons for denying overtime | (Plaintiff) MPD offered shifting, inconsistent reasons; prerequisites asserted were only for new trainees | MPD did not press a specific nondiscriminatory justification for overtime denials at summary judgment | Court: MPD did not present a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for overtime denials in its motion, so issue remains for trial |
| Whether Robinson showed sufficient evidence of pretext/comparative treatment | Points to less-qualified white officers who taught or received ATEU overtime and supervisor responsiveness to white officers | MPD emphasizes civilianization and that part-time/OT assignments differed from full-time detail; MPD notes Robinson earned substantial non-ATEU overtime | Court: Evidence of comparative treatment and Robinson’s overtime history raises triable issues as to discrimination/retaliation regarding overtime denials |
Key Cases Cited
- Winston & Strawn v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (materiality and drawing inferences at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must show genuine factual dispute)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (McDonnell Douglas application)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (shortcut when employer articulates nondiscriminatory reason)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse retaliatory action)
- Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (comparative qualifications for pretext)