Vernard Evans v. Kathleen Sebelius
405 U.S. App. D.C. 50
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Evans, a 54-year-old African American female, sought the newly created LDDS GS-14 position at HHS in July 2001 and was selected but never promoted due to a hiring freeze and later administrative cancellation.
- Bush Administration hiring controls replaced the freeze, with various memos requiring approvals for promotions to GS-13 and above; the LDDS position was ultimately canceled without final authorization.
- Evans learned through union and FOIA that whites were promoted during the hiring controls, while she was not, and that the LDDS vacancy was cancelled rather than filled.
- Morrissey (Commissioner) and McCormick were involved in a later Executive Assistant detail that Evans alleged reflected race-based selection, and Evans alleged racial animus in staff remarks and treatment.
- Evans exhausted administrative remedies and sued under Title VII and the ADEA; the district court granted summary judgment for the government on all claims, including the LDDS denial and the Executive Assistant detail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Evans denied the LDDS promotion due to race pretext? | Evans alleges shifting explanations and white promotions show pretext. | LDDS cancelled due to administrative hiring controls; no champion in new administration. | Material issues of fact preclude summary judgment on the LDDS claim |
| Was Evans denied the Executive Assistant detail due to race? | Morrissey’s selection showed discriminatory motives and improper process. | Morrissey had no pre-meeting with Evans; reasons were non-pretextual. | Affirmed on alternative ground: Evans failed to rebut proffered non-discriminatory reason |
| Are Evans's age-discrimination claims preserved or waived? | Age claims waived |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes framework for Title VII discrimination analysis)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (requires proffered nondiscriminatory reason not be ignored in favor of pretext alone)
- Burdine v. Tex. Dept. of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (discrimination burden-shifting framework remains applicable)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (impeachment of employer’s explanation is persuasive circumstantial evidence of discrimination)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (1998) (illustrates limits of showing discrimination through pretext when weak or indeterminate facts exist)
- Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512 (2000) (evidence that promotions of whites during downsizing supports an inference of discrimination)