Vasquez-Mills v. District of Columbia
278 F. Supp. 3d 167
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Vivienne Vasquez-Mills, of Puerto Rican descent, served as assistant principal at Bruce Monroe (2010–2013); DCPS did not reappoint her for 2013–14.
- Bruce Monroe struggled with low literacy and served many English-learners; DCPS created an Assistant Principal for Literacy (APL) position late in 2012–13 requiring specialized literacy experience and licensure.
- Principal Dr. Marta Palacios decided (with approval from Instructional Superintendent Dr. Amanda Alexander and HR) to replace a traditional assistant principal with an APL to address literacy; Palacios recommended non-reappointment of Vasquez-Mills.
- Vasquez-Mills received a non-reappointment letter from Dr. Alexander; she declined to apply for the APL because she lacked required literacy credentials. Althea Bustillo was later hired as APL.
- Vasquez-Mills sued for national-origin discrimination (Puerto Rican); many of her proffered statements were hearsay or inadmissible. The only admissible disputed statement was Palacios allegedly telling Vasquez-Mills that "Dr. Alexander hates Puerto Ricans."
- The district court found no admissible evidence creating a genuine issue that the decision was motivated by national-origin bias, and granted summary judgment for the District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admissible direct evidence exists that non-reappointment was due to national-origin bias | Palacios told Vasquez-Mills that Alexander "hates Puerto Ricans," plus other alleged remarks and circumstantial statements | Most statements are hearsay or irrelevant; Palacios’s alleged remark is the only admissible statement but does not show decisionmaker bias | Court: No admissible direct evidence showing discriminatory motive that would preclude summary judgment |
| Whether McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting applies or direct-evidence rule controls | Vasquez-Mills contends direct evidence exists (Palacios’s remark) so McDonnell Douglas may be inapplicable | Defendant treats case under McDonnell Douglas and proffers legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (need for APL) | Court: Even assuming admissible remark, plaintiff conceded Palacios made decision and identified nondiscriminatory reason; defendant entitled to judgment |
| Whether defendant’s stated reason (creating APL for literacy) is pretextual | Plaintiff argues procedural irregularity (budget change after submission) and other facts suggest pretext | Defendant shows legitimate, reasonable basis tied to school literacy needs and undisputed procedural approvals | Court: Plaintiff failed to show pretext; procedural deviations or disagreement with business judgment insufficient |
| Admissibility of other alleged discriminatory remarks | Plaintiff offered testimony and a colleague’s declaration alleging disparaging comments | Defendant objects: many statements are hearsay, not personal knowledge, or irrelevant to motive | Court: Excluded or discounted those statements; they do not create a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment movant’s initial burden to show absence of genuine dispute)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (definition of genuine dispute and materiality for summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (plaintiff’s burden to show employer’s reason is pretextual)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir.) (reasonableness of employer’s belief and assessment of pretext)