Smith v. Contreras-Sweet
239 F. Supp. 3d 57
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- CaSandra Smith, an SBA GS-13 employee, underwent a desk audit in May 2013 that concluded she was performing GS-14 duties; HR advised the position would be subject to competitive filling rather than an automatic upgrade.
- Smith’s supervisor submitted recruitment paperwork promptly, but HR processing errors, the 2013 federal shutdown, and an SBA hiring freeze delayed and ultimately canceled the intended GS-14 posting.
- Instead of promotion, Smith’s above-grade duties were reassigned and her position was reclassified within GS-13; Smith filed EEO complaints beginning August 2013 and a formal EEO complaint in January 2014.
- Smith also applied (unsuccessfully) for a GS-15 Director post (applied via delegated examining only) and a GS-14 Los Angeles position that was later cancelled and re-posted at GS-13 (she did not apply to GS-13 posting).
- After her EEO contact, Smith alleges retaliatory acts: denial/denial-then-approval of training, denial of a transfer requested as a reasonable accommodation, loss of a promised private office during office renovations, cancellation of participation in a train-the-trainer event, and temporary IT/equipment delays.
- The SBA moved for summary judgment; the court found the record insufficient for a reasonable juror to infer discriminatory or retaliatory intent and granted summary judgment for the SBA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-promotion to GS-14 after desk audit | Smith contends HR and managers deliberately prevented her non-competitive upgrade and delayed/postponed posting to deny promotion (race/sex discrimination) | SBA contends HR applied classification rules (planned management action v. accretion), supervisor timely sought recruitment, delay caused by HR error and hiring freeze/cancelation for budgetary priorities | Court: SBA proffered legitimate reasons; no evidentiary basis to find pretext or discriminatory motive; summary judgment for SBA |
| Non-selection for GS-15 Director position | Smith says she was better qualified and should have been on merit-promotion list due to GS-14 duties | SBA: Smith applied only via delegated examining (veteran preference track) and did not apply under Merit Promotion, so was not certified | Court: Smith’s failure to apply under Merit Promotion defeats the claim; no evidence of discrimination |
| Non-selection for GS-14 Los Angeles position | Timing of cancellation after her application suggests targeted cancellation to block Smith | SBA: Position cancelled for organizational reasons; deciding officials were unaware she applied; later re-posted at GS-13 | Court: No evidence linking cancellation to Smith or discriminatory motive; claim fails |
| Retaliation (training, office space, transfer/accommodation, train-the-trainer, IT issues) | Smith alleges adverse acts occurred after EEO contact and, in aggregate, show retaliatory intent (hostile work environment and discrete acts) | SBA: Actions were non-material or explained by legitimate reasons (budget, renovation downsizing, accommodation policy, technical/administrative decisions); many requests were ultimately granted or contemporaneously justified | Court: No materially adverse actions shown that would deter a reasonable employee; hostile-work-environment theory fails (acts not sufficiently linked, severe, or pervasive); no evidence of retaliatory intent; summary judgment for SBA |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir.) (retaliation proof and causation standards)
- Calhoun v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 1259 (D.C. Cir.) (summary judgment standard in discrimination/retaliation contexts)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir.) (burden-shifting and ultimate question after employer articulates legitimate reason)
- DeJesus v. WP Co. LLC, 841 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir.) (ultimate question: sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court) (definition of materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 792 F.3d 166 (D.C. Cir.) (retaliatory hostile work environment elements and requirement that acts be linked and severe/pervasive)