Thompson v. District of Columbia
272 F. Supp. 3d 17
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Nora Thompson, age 61, worked as a DOC library technician since 2004 and uses a walking cane; she alleges a perceived disability and was never promoted to higher-paying law library posts.
- She applied for multiple DOC positions (including an October 2015 clerical job) and alleges she was repeatedly passed over in favor of younger, non-disabled applicants.
- Since ~2012 Thompson alleges repeated harassment by DOC Corporal Susan Briscoe-Armstrong, including provoking inmates to abuse her; Thompson filed internal complaints and a Civil Protection Order without remedial action.
- In Dec. 2015 Briscoe-Armstrong complained about Thompson; Thompson failed to respond and was suspended five days for insubordination in Feb. 2016.
- Thompson filed an EEOC charge on March 29, 2016 alleging age and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation; DOC later issued a Letter of Counseling in May 2016 for policy violations.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; the court converted to summary judgment and granted the motion, dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination — failure to promote | Thompson alleges she was disabled (perceived disability to walk) and was passed over for promotion because of disability | District contends Thompson failed to plead an ADA disability — she performs job functions and offered only a cane authorization | Court: ADA discrimination dismissed — plaintiff failed to show she is disabled or regarded as disabled |
| ADEA discrimination — failure to hire (Oct 2015 clerical job) | Thompson says she applied and was not hired due to age | District argues claims are limited to EEOC charge scope and EEOC charge did not mention suspension/letter; plaintiff failed to plead adverse action or replacement by younger person | Court: ADEA claim dismissed — outside EEOC charge scope and insufficient evidence of age-based adverse hiring decision |
| ADA hostile work environment | Thompson alleges prolonged harassment by Briscoe-Armstrong and other guards tied to her disability | District argues allegations lack any disability-focused conduct or tangible workplace consequences | Court: Hostile work environment dismissed — no showing of disability-based harassment or severe/tangible effects |
| Retaliation — Letter of Counseling | Thompson contends the May 2016 counseling letter was retaliatory after EEOC charge | District maintains the letter was routine corrective feedback, not materially adverse | Court: Retaliation dismissed — letter was not materially adverse (no change in grade or pay; constructive criticism) |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynes v. Williams, 392 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (ADA disability elements)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (availability of jobs bearing on substantial limitation analysis)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and inferences for nonmovant)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (EEOC exhaustion and scope of judicial claims)
- Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (ADEA failure-to-hire prima facie elements)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (hostile work environment/retaliation standards)