Smith v. Holder
115 F. Supp. 3d 5
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Rhonda Smith, an African American DOJ employee, sued under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, and disability (right-hand CTS) discrimination and failure to accommodate.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the Government and dismissed all counts on May 13, 2015. Smith moved to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).
- Key factual timeline: most alleged adverse acts occurred in 2007; some alleged accommodation denials and supervisory actions occurred in 2009–2010 after the ADA Amendments became effective on Jan 1, 2009.
- The Court found plaintiff was not disabled under the pre-2009 Rehabilitation Act standard for the 2007 incidents and that Smith failed to exhaust administrative remedies for post-2008 incidents.
- On Title VII claims, the Court found no admissible evidence creating a triable issue of race-based disparate treatment, hostile work environment, causation, or actionable retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court applied correct summary-judgment standard | Smith: Court improperly weighed evidence and disregarded her self‑serving statements; Tolan requires caution | Gov't: Smith produced only uncorroborated, inadmissible statements contradicted by witnesses | Court: Applied correct Rule 56 standard; self-serving, uncorroborated assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether right‑hand CTS was a disability under pre‑2009 law | Smith: CTS can be a disability pre‑ADA Amendments and Court misapplied Toyota | Gov't: Toyota set a demanding pre‑Amendments standard; Smith failed to show severe impairment | Court: Smith failed to prove CTS met pre‑2009 disability standard; Toyota properly applied |
| Whether post‑2008 allegations (post‑Jan‑1‑2009) could be litigated without new EEO exhaustion | Smith: Post‑2009 incidents relate to earlier EEO charge and employer’s duty to accommodate continued; no new filing required | Gov't: Post‑2008 discrete acts required separate exhaustion; applying new ADA standard retroactively is impermissible | Court: Post‑2008 discrete acts were not exhausted; plaintiff required to administratively pursue them after Jan 1, 2009; exhaustion failure bars those claims |
| Whether Title VII hostile work environment/retaliation claims survive | Smith: Accumulation of incidents supports hostile environment and retaliation; actions were adverse | Gov't: Alleged incidents are trivial, nonactionable, and lack causation | Court: Allegations amount to immaterial slights; objectively not sufficiently severe or adverse to support Title VII hostile‑work‑environment or retaliation claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (summary-judgment review requires care in weighing competing evidence)
- Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (pre‑ADA‑Amendments standard for qualifying as disabled was demanding)
- Lytes v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 572 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (ADA Amendments broadened coverage and cannot be applied retroactively to impose new duties)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete discriminatory acts require timely, individual exhaustion; ‘‘continuing violation’’ doctrine rejected for discrete acts)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (objective standard for adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (sufficiency of evidence to permit jury to disbelieve employer’s nondiscriminatory explanation)
- Gleklen v. Democratic Congressional Campaign Comm., 199 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (inadmissible evidence and speculation do not create triable issues)