Spaeth v. Georgetown University, 943 F. Supp. 2d 198

Spaeth, born in 1950, sues Georgetown University under the ADEA and DCHRA for not interviewing or hiring him for an entry-level tenure-track position in 2010 after applying via AALS FAR.
Georgetown moved for summary judgment, arguing Spaeth was not a qualified or suitable candidate under its primary emphasis on scholarly publication and potential.
Spaeth had impressive credentials but lacked publications and a clear scholarly focus aligned with Georgetown’s needs, especially in tax; his FAR form did not list tax as an area of interest.
Three hires in 2010–11 (Brooks, Grinberg, Pasachoff) were all about 35 years old and had substantial scholarly publications and research agendas in tax; two were tax-focused hires.
Georgetown’s entry-level process prioritized scholarship and demonstrated scholarly potential; Spaeth did not present a record of original scholarly work or a tax focus.
The court applied McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA/DCHRA claims and found no genuine dispute that Georgetown’s reasons were non-discriminatory and not pretextual.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Georgetown’s reasons were non-discriminatory	Spaeth asserts age bias tainted the decision.	Georgetown focused on scholarship and fit; not age.	Non-discriminatory reasons supported; no pretext established.
Whether Spaeth is significantly better qualified than hires	Spaeth’s background and experience show superior qualifications.	Spaeth lacked scholarly publications; hires had strong scholarly records.	Spaeth not significantly better qualified; hires’ scholarship decisive.
Whether tax teaching emphasis biased the process	Tax was a known need and Spaeth’s background could have fit that need.	Tax was not listed on Spaeth’s FAR form; Georgetown could not infer tax interest.	No evidence of discriminatory inference; lack of tax focus undermines pretext.
Whether age-related remarks or statistics show pervasive bias	Remarks and demographics reveal a discriminatory atmosphere.	Remarks were descriptive, contextually benign, or non-probative.	Evidence insufficient to show pervasive bias or pretext; not probative of discrimination.

McKinley v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 647 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (summary judgment framework; burden-shifting proper usage)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts; genuine disputes standard)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for causation in ADEA context)
Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination claims)
Jackson v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (courts defer to employer’s nondiscriminatory qualifications decision)