Tucker v. Johnson
211 F. Supp. 3d 95
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Paige Tucker, a FEMA probationary employee, alleged gender discrimination, retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, and hostile work environment after termination for "unacceptable performance" in March 2010.
- From summer 2009 through early 2010, coworker David Thompson made sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in unwelcome physical conduct directed mostly at female staff; Tucker reported his conduct to her supervisor (Richard Rosene) and to FEMA security in September 2009.
- After Tucker’s September 2009 security complaint, Rosene’s treatment of her allegedly worsened; she received a negative performance review on November 5, 2009 (shortly after receiving an award nomination in August and selection in September), another negative review in January 2010, and was terminated in March 2010.
- Tucker testified that Rosene made gendered comments (e.g., that she should "learn [her] place") and allegedly threatened she would "pay" for contacting the EEO office and union. Rosene denies these statements.
- The case proceeded on summary judgment; the court drew all factual inferences in Tucker’s favor and treated the record as creating genuine disputes on some claims but not others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (Title VII) | Thompson’s repeated sexual comments and physical conduct created an abusive environment. | Conduct was inappropriate but not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable. | Grant summary judgment for defendant; conduct was not severe or pervasive and did not alter employment terms. |
| Gender discrimination (termination) | Rosene’s comments and differential treatment of Tucker support an inference termination was because she is female. | Tucker’s termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory poor performance. | Deny summary judgment for defendant; disputed facts (including alleged gendered remarks) could allow a jury to find discrimination. |
| Retaliation (for reporting harassment) | Tucker opposed unlawful conduct (complaints to supervisor/security/EEO); adverse actions followed closely in time and Rosene allegedly threatened retaliation. | Adverse actions preceded protected EEO activity and were motivated by documented performance issues dating to July 2009. | Deny summary judgment for defendant; direct and circumstantial evidence (timing, statements) suffice for a jury on retaliatory motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and weighing evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (hostile-work-environment standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile-work-environment—objective/subjective test)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (sexual harassment/hostile environment standards)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (when employer offers nondiscriminatory reason, inquiry is whether jury could find pretext)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Wilson v. Cox, 753 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (direct evidence of bias can take claim to a jury)