Talavera v. Shah
395 U.S. App. D.C. 7
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Talavera, a Hispanic woman, worked for USAID Office of Security from Sept 2001 to Sept 2005.
- She alleged gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII stemming from a June 2004 non-promotion, a planned but unresolved mental-health screening referral, and eventual termination.
- The June 2004 non-promotion decision selected Mira over Talavera for a GS-14 position; Streufert interviewed candidates and heavily influenced promotion decisions.
- Flannery (Director of the Office of Security) allegedly commented on Streufert's bias against women, suggesting biased management influence.
- Streufert destroyed interview notes shortly after the promotion decision and failed to log interview notes in the HR system, creating potential spoliation concerns.
- The district court granted summary judgment; the DC Circuit affirmed in part and remanded the June 2004 non-promotion claim for further proceedings.
- Talavera's EEO complaint regarding the mental-health-screening referral occurred in June 2004, proximate to the challenged promotion decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretext for June 2004 non-promotion | Talavera argues evidence shows USAID's reason was pretextual. | USAID contends Mira's interview performance was the genuine basis. | Remanded for trial on pretext (genuine dispute of material fact). |
| Retaliation for EEO activity | Talavera argues Streufert knew of her EEO complaint and acted with animus. | No sufficient evidence of knowledge or causal link. | Summary judgment affirmed for retaliation claim to not survive. |
| Admissibility/weight of statements by Flannery re Streufert bias | Statements by Flannery show discriminator intent relevant to promotion. | Statements admitted as party admissions or irrelevant to the specific action. | Court recognizes relevance to bias; admissibility discussed, weight for pretext analysis considered. |
| Spoliation of interview notes evidence | Destruction of notes supports inference of pretext. | Destruction alone is insufficient; cannot defeat summary judgment. | Spoliation inference, with other evidence, supports finding of pretext supporting remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for Title VII discrimination proof)
- Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (prima facie, pretext, and evidence weighing standard)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (how to evaluate pretext and evidence of discrimination)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (post hoc analysis of employer's reasons for action)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (retained framework after proffered reason)
- Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (spoliation inference when record preservation violated)
- Webb v. D.C., 146 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (spoliation inference as sanction)
- Harbor Ins. Co. v. Schnabel Foundation Co., Inc., 946 F.2d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (evidence standards for collective reasoning)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (summary judgment framework for discrimination cases)