Valerie Kline v. Kiran Ahuja, 20-5220

Valerie Kline was a GS-12 Management Analyst at OPM (hired 2002) who initially performed regulatory work; her position description shifted to primarily non‑regulatory duties in 2003.
In 2006 OPM created a primarily regulatory GS-12 role filled by Stephen Hickman; Kline alleges OPM unofficially placed Hickman in a higher-profile path that disadvantaged her.
In November 2008 OPM advertised the GS-13 Team Leader (regulatory liaison) position; both Kline and Hickman applied and Hickman was selected based on superior regulatory knowledge and Federal Register experience.
Kline received intermittent regulatory assignments in late 2008 but was limited to routine notices in January 2009 and had regulatory duties removed entirely by July 2009; she claims this was retaliatory.
OPM issued three disciplinary actions against Kline: a January 2008 counseling memorandum, a June 2008 official reprimand, and a brief March 2009 suspension over a weekend without loss of pay; Kline asserts these were retaliatory.
The district court granted summary judgment for OPM on all Title VII and ADEA claims; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, concluding no reasonable jury could find discrimination or retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Was Kline denied GS-13 Team Leader due to sex/age discrimination?	Kline says OPM maneuvered to favor Hickman and denied her promotion because of sex and age.	OPM says selection was based on qualifications (Hickman’s regulatory experience and Federal Register background).	Affirmed: No evidence linking selection decision to sex or age; Kline not shown to be significantly better qualified.
2) Did OPM retaliate by diminishing/eliminating Kline’s regulatory duties?	Kline contends reassignment and removal of regulatory tasks were retaliation for prior EEO activity.	OPM argues duty changes were not a significant, materially adverse change and were not motivated by protected activity.	Affirmed: Removal of duties not shown to be a significant adverse action; no record evidence connecting reassignment to protected activity.
3) Were the counseling memo, reprimand, and brief suspension retaliatory adverse actions?	Kline says the disciplinary actions were imposed in retaliation for her EEO complaints.	OPM maintains the actions were legitimate responses to workplace conduct and not retaliation; counseling/reprimand are not materially adverse.	Affirmed: Counseling memo and reprimand are not materially adverse; suspension might be adverse but no evidence that any disciplinary action was motivated by retaliation or discrimination.

Chandler v. Berlin, 998 F.3d 965 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (standard of review for summary judgment and treating evidence in nonmovant’s favor)
Thompson v. District of Columbia, 967 F.3d 804 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (summary judgment evidence and inferences for nonmoving party)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (definition of genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment)
Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (test for whether reassignment/duty change is a significant diminishment)
Durant v. District of Columbia, 875 F.3d 685 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (disciplinary admonitions typically not materially adverse)
Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must show she was significantly better qualified to directly challenge employer’s qualifications-based explanation)
Kline v. Berry, [citation="404 F. App'x 505"] (D.C. Cir. 2010) (previous appeal involving Kline’s challenges to OPM personnel actions)