Steele v. McHugh, 192 F. Supp. 3d 151

Background

Dr. Brett Steele, hired Aug. 2010 as a probationary associate professor at NDU/CISA (age 47), taught several courses and had repeated supervisory disputes about teaching methods in 2010–2011.
In May 2011 CISA informed Steele he would be terminated at the end of the summer semester; the administration cited budget-driven reductions focused on probationary faculty.
Steele filed an informal EEO complaint in July 2011 alleging age discrimination; in August 2011 after complaints by staff about Steele’s allegedly aggressive conduct he was placed on administrative leave, stripped of base access, and resigned on Aug. 17, 2011.
Steele filed a formal EEO complaint (Nov. 2011), received a final agency decision denying relief (May 2013), and then sued in federal court alleging ADEA age discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and equitable relief.
The Government moved for summary judgment; the court treated the asserted reduction-in-force and complaints about Steele’s conduct as the employer’s legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons and granted summary judgment for Defendant on all claims.

Issues

Issue	Steele's Argument	Carter's Argument	Held
Age discrimination under ADEA	Steele argues termination was age‑motivated and younger faculty were favored (comparators; staffing/hiring after his termination).	Cites legitimate non‑discriminatory reason: budget cuts and selection of probationary staff for reduction; comparators not similarly situated or not substantially younger.	Summary judgment for Defendant: plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence is insufficient to show employer’s reason was pretext for age discrimination.
Retaliation (ADEA)	Steele contends adverse actions (administrative leave, "Do Not Admit" status, refusal to rehire/performance appraisal, harassment) followed his informal EEO complaint and were retaliatory.	Actions were justified by independent complaints about Steele’s aggressive behavior; temporal proximity insufficient without evidence of but‑for causation; some alleged acts pre‑date protected activity.	Summary judgment for Defendant: no but‑for causal link or evidence of pretext; adverse actions were supported by employer’s honest belief in complaints.
Hostile work environment (discriminatory and retaliatory)	Steele alleges pervasive humiliation and harassment by supervisors tied to age and EEO activity.	The incidents were episodic, overlapped with the conduct evaluated in discrimination/retaliation claims, and not severe/pervasive enough to constitute actionable hostile work environment.	Summary judgment for Defendant: record does not show sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct to support hostile work environment claims.
Constructive discharge / Equitable relief	Steele sought relief based on the same underlying adverse employment actions.	Court treats these counts as redundant or as requests for relief and notes absence of underlying viable claims.	Counts IV and V dismissed as conceded/redundant; summary judgment for Defendant on remaining relief.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial discrimination proof)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff must show employer’s explanation is pretext and permit inference of discrimination)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (at summary judgment, once employer articulates nondiscriminatory reason, inquiry centers on whether jury could infer discrimination)
Nurriddin v. Bolden, 818 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir.) (same standard and application to retaliation/discrimination review)
O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (ADEA requires showing of ‘substantially younger’ comparator for certain inferences)
Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir.) (consideration of totality of evidence in discrimination cases)
Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (verbal clashes and sporadic incidents usually insufficient for hostile work environment)