Sampay v. American University, 294 A.3d 106

Sampay worked at American University (AU) in OIT, promoted to LAN Analyst II (2001) and later retitled to Systems Engineer (Oct 2016); supervisors Nahidian (direct) and Mirzabeigy (manager) oversaw her.
After performance concerns, she received a written warning (Apr 2016), challenged it, and was given a "Communication of Expectations." She then transferred positions and was placed on a four-month probation ending March 1, 2017.
Sampay missed work Jan 25, 2017 (subpoena to testify); after a meeting with Nahidian she reported he yelled at her and sent HR an email (Jan 27) and later filed an EEO complaint with HR (Feb 7, 2017).
AU extended her probation (~Feb 27, 2017), placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) (Apr 6, 2017), and terminated her after the PIP (July 21, 2017).
Sampay sued under the DCHRA alleging hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation (Dec 14, 2017). The trial court granted AU summary judgment on all counts; Sampay appealed only the retaliation (Count IV) and the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Jan 27, 2017 email was protected activity	Jan 27 email reporting Nahidian yelling put AU on notice of discrimination/retaliation	AU: Jan 27 email not pleaded as protected activity in complaint	Not considered on appeal — plaintiff failed to plead Jan 27 email as protected activity
Whether the Feb 7, 2017 EEO complaint was protected activity	Feb 7 EEO complaint put AU on notice of discriminatory harassment	AU disputed but record and AU’s own contemporaneous determination showed awareness	Held protected activity under DCHRA (sufficient notice)
Whether extension of probation, PIP, termination were adverse actions	All three actions could dissuade a reasonable employee from complaining and thus are adverse	AU: actions were legitimate performance-management steps, not retaliation	All three qualify as adverse actions for retaliation analysis (court treated them as such)
Whether AU's stated reasons were pretext for retaliation	Failure to follow AU forms/procedures and alleged taint from Nahidian show pretext	AU: proffered nondiscriminatory reasons (probation extension to improve, PIP, failure to meet PIP) and decisionmaker Mirzabeigy acted independently	Plaintiff failed to raise genuine dispute of material fact on pretext; summary judgment for AU affirmed

Propp v. Counterpart Int’l, 39 A.3d 856 (D.C. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework and summary judgment review)
Furline v. Morrison, 953 A.2d 344 (D.C. 2008) (conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence)
Vogel v. D.C. Off. of Plan., 944 A.2d 456 (D.C. 2008) (notice requirement for protected complaint)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation)
Hollins v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 760 A.2d 563 (D.C. 2000) (temporal proximity and knowledge for causation)
Jeffries v. Barr, 965 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (employer policy deviations as evidence of pretext)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (plaintiff’s burden to show pretext after employer proffers reasons)
Atl. Richfield Co. v. D.C. Comm’n on Human Rights, 515 A.2d 1095 (D.C. 1986) (pretext/ultimate burden discussion)