Turner v. Nicholson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131426

Background

Turner, an African-American Medical Technologist, sues Eric Shinseki in his official capacity under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, asserting discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims arising from two disciplinary actions.
The actions at issue are a January 19, 2005 Report of Contact and a February 18, 2005 Counseling E-mail issued by Lee, the evening shift supervisor who had been promoted over Turner.
Turner had challenged Lee’s selection as evening shift supervisor and sent letters to Congressman Elijah Cummings alleging discriminatory hiring practices.
The Department of Veterans Affairs’ EEO process culminated in a Final Agency Order dated December 19, 2006, rejecting Turner’s discrimination and retaliation claims; Turner filed suit March 21, 2007, refiled April 5, 2007 after deficiencies in the original filing.
Defendant moves to dismiss or for summary judgment on timeliness, Section 1981 jurisdiction, and merits (discrimination, retaliation, hostile environment); Turner opposes on timeliness and merits.
The court excludes punitive damages and ultimately grants summary judgment for the defendant on discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment, while resolving timeliness in Turner’s favor for filing this action.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the complaint timely filed under Title VII’s 90-day limit?	Turner filed within the 90-day window via March 21, 2007 original filing.	Filing occurred after the 90-day window if notice is credited to December 22–26, 2006.	No; timeliness is preserved by equitable tolling; original timely filing exists within the 90 days.
Can Turner’s § 1981 claim against a federal agency be heard?	§ 1981 independently supports a claim against the defendant.	Sovereign immunity bars § 1981 claims against federal agencies; Title VII provides the exclusive remedy.	§ 1981 claim against the federal government is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Did Turner suffer actionable adverse employment actions for discrimination?	Report of Contact and Counseling E-mail constitute adverse actions based on race.	Actions are mere criticisms not constituting adverse actions; legitimate business conduct.	Actions do not constitute adverse employment actions; discrimination claim fails.
Was there a causal link supporting retaliation?	Disciplinary actions followed Turner’s protected activity (letters to Congress).	Lee had no knowledge of protected activity before actions; no causal link.	No causal connection established; retaliation claim fails.
Did Turner’s claims amount to a hostile work environment?	Emails and reports created a racially hostile environment.	Actions were ordinary workplace communications; not severe or pervasive enough.	Hostile environment claim fails; no Title VII actionable environment established.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (adverse action standards for harassment; employer liability)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext framework after legitimate reasons shown)
Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile work environment standard; severity and pervasiveness)
Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (equitable tolling principles; not jurisdictional for Title VII)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (filing deadlines; not jurisdictional but tolling possible)
Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1976) (Title VII exclusive remedy; §1981 limitations for federal actors)
Kempthorne v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (elements of Title VII discrimination; adverse action and causation)
Dorns v. Geithner, 692 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2010) (adverse-action standard for retaliation; aggregate actions considered)