Rocco Lombardi v. Julian Castro
675 F. App'x 690
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rocco Lombardi, a HUD employee, sued under Title VII alleging retaliation for filing prior EEO complaints after being passed over for two promotions (Contract Administrator Oversight Monitor and Senior Project Manager).
- The district court granted summary judgment for HUD; Lombardi appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Parties agreed Lombardi engaged in protected activity and suffered adverse employment actions; the dispute concerned causation and pretext.
- The court applied the three-step burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims on summary judgment: prima facie case, employer’s legitimate reason, and plaintiff’s showing of pretext (Brooks framework).
- The panel required but-for causation for retaliation claims (per Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar) and concluded Lombardi failed to raise a triable issue that retaliatory purpose was a but-for cause of the non-selections.
- Even assuming a prima facie case, the panel found HUD’s stated reasons (preference for performance-based contract administrator experience and poor interview performance) were legitimate and unrebutted as pretextual; summary judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lombardi showed a causal link between EEO activity and non-selection | Lombardi contends prior EEO filings caused HUD not to select him | HUD says other non-retaliatory reasons explain non-selection and no but-for causal link exists | Held: Lombardi failed to show but-for causation; causal link not established |
| Whether the but-for causation standard applies to Title VII retaliation claims | Lombardi argued retaliation standard met under conventional prima facie causation | HUD relied on Supreme Court precedent requiring but-for causation for retaliation | Held: But-for causation required (Nassar) and applied by court |
| Whether HUD’s stated reasons for selecting other candidates were legitimate | Lombardi argues selection reasons were pretext for retaliation | HUD points to interview scores, prefabricated questions favoring contract-administration experience, and Lombardi’s poor interview admissions | Held: HUD’s reasons legitimate; contemporaneous notes and admissions support them |
| Whether HUD’s reasons were pretextual | Lombardi contends interviewer bias/decisionmaker’s weaknesses show pretext | HUD notes another promoted candidate had also engaged in EEO activity and most interviewers lacked retaliatory intent; all agreed Lombardi should not be chosen | Held: No triable issue of pretext; summary judgment for HUD affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) (retaliation prohibited under Title VII)
- Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (definitions and scope of protected activity and retaliation)
- Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) (three-step burden-shifting framework for retaliation summary judgment)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (but-for causation required for retaliation claims)
- T.B. ex rel. Brenneise v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 806 F.3d 451 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying Nassar but-for causation standard at summary judgment)