Toomer v. Panetta
266 F. Supp. 3d 184
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Mirlin Toomer, a DoD employee, sued alleging racially hostile work environment, retaliation, racial discrimination, and age discrimination; defendant Secretary of Defense (Mattis) moved for summary judgment.
- Central incident: a brown, ape/Bigfoot–like action figure wrapped in white cord and displayed in the office; photographs of the display were in the record.
- Toomer complained to supervisor Diane Stiger; Stiger allegedly laughed and asked, “Do you think of yourself as a monkey?”
- After a separate Privacy Act materials mishap, Toomer refused orders to delete or return materials; disciplinary steps (reprimand, mandatory training, one-day suspension) and ultimately termination followed.
- Magistrate Judge Harvey recommended granting summary judgment for defendant and denying Toomer’s motions (including spoliation sanctions); District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan adopted the R&R and entered judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether action figure + supervisor comment created racially hostile work environment | Toomer: the hanging, cord-wrapped black/brown figure and Stiger’s comment were objectively threatening and racially offensive | Defense: photos show no noose; benign origin (gift for a white colleague nicknamed “Bigfoot”); Stiger’s remark was a stray, non-severe comment | Court: No hostile environment — photographic record + benign explanation make conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive; summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether Stiger’s question “Do you think of yourself as a monkey?” by itself suffices | Toomer: comment validated the offense and is actionable | Defense: comment was isolated, ambiguous, and not as severe as racial epithets that courts have found actionable | Court: Comment offensive but not severe/pervasive enough to establish hostile work environment |
| Whether alleged retaliatory acts (yelling, reprimand, training/suspension, negative review, termination) constitute actionable retaliation or a retaliatory hostile work environment | Toomer: cumulative incidents and specific acts (verbal/physical altercations, reprimands, suspension, termination) were materially adverse and pretextual | Defense: many acts not materially adverse; legitimate non-retaliatory reasons (insubordination re: Privacy Act materials, disruptive conduct, failure to follow leave policy); Toomer failed to show pretext or comparators | Court: Most acts not materially adverse or were justified by legitimate reasons; Toomer failed to show pretext or coherent pattern to sustain retaliatory hostile work environment; summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether spoliation sanctions or hearing were warranted for the action figure | Toomer: defendant lost or concealed the exhibit, warranting sanctions/hearing | Defense: the action figure was found during litigation and photographs of the original display were in the record; no prejudice | Court: No sanctions or hearing — recovered item and existing photographic evidence negate prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir.) (hostile-work-environment standard; materiality of adverse actions)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court) (hostile-work-environment test: subjective and objective components)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Supreme Court) (totality-of-circumstances in hostile-work-environment analysis)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court) (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court) (definition of genuine dispute and burdens at summary judgment)
- Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, 712 F.3d 572 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing severity of use of racial epithets)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court) (retaliation adverse-action standard: what might dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (Supreme Court) ("cat’s-paw"/proximate-cause theory for biased subordinate influence)
- Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir.) (evidence of pretext; evidence suggesting employer’s stated reason is a lie)