Walker v. District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 2015-0055
| D.D.C. | Sep 30, 2017Background
- Shavon Walker, an African-American special education teacher employed by D.C. Public Schools (DCPS), taught at McKinley (autism program) from 2005 and was transferred to Shaw (intellectually disabled students) in Sept. 2011; her employment was terminated effective August 8, 2013.
- Walker repeatedly complained about inadequate resources, training, classroom conditions, and IEP implementation; she filed five internal EEO grievances with DCPS/LMER between Oct. 2012 and May 2013 and an EEOC charge in June 2012 (amended May 2014).
- DCPS investigated an allegation that Walker finalized a student’s IEP improperly (alleged "fraudulent IEP"); that investigation culminated in an investigative report and Walker’s termination after a review board decision.
- Walker sued the District in federal court asserting claims under: the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act (DC WPA); Title VII (race discrimination and retaliation); the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (retaliation). Defendant moved for summary judgment.
- The court struck parts of Walker’s sprawling countervailing facts for noncompliance with local rules and evaluated the record, finding genuine disputes on certain retaliation and whistleblower claims but not on the race-discrimination or ADA/Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker established Title VII racial discrimination | Walker: denial of resources, training and a heavier caseload vs. a white teacher amounted to race discrimination | District: alleged shortages and assignment changes were nondiscriminatory, routine workplace issues insufficient for Title VII adverse action | Held: Summary judgment for District — Walker failed to show a materially adverse action or discriminatory intent; discrimination claim dismissed |
| Whether Walker established Title VII retaliation | Walker: protected EEO complaints and advocacy led to investigation and termination | District: many contested acts (transfer, reprimands, resource denials, evaluations) are not materially adverse; termination supported by investigation | Held: Denied summary judgment — genuine issues exist whether investigation/termination were retaliatory (temporal proximity, knowledge, and disputed facts) |
| Whether Walker established ADA/Rehabilitation Act retaliation | Walker: advocacy for students (contact with student attorneys, complaints about IEP noncompliance) was protected and led to adverse actions | District: Plaintiff’s advocacy was at most part of her job; alleged consequences (micromanagement, evaluations) were not materially adverse | Held: Summary judgment for District — Walker failed to show a materially adverse action causally connected to protected activity |
| Whether Walker’s disclosures qualify as protected under DC WPA and caused retaliatory personnel action | Walker: disclosures about failure to comply with IEPs/IDEA and safety issues were protected; those disclosures contributed to investigation and termination | District: many complaints were routine resource complaints or public knowledge and not protected; termination justified by legitimate reasons | Held: Denied summary judgment on DC WPA claim — Court found IDEA-related complaints are protected disclosures and factual disputes on causation and investigatory irregularities preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (legal framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and reasonable jury inference)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation context)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation standard for Title VII retaliation)
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt to survive summary judgment)
- Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir.) (elements for Title VII retaliation claim)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir.) (limits of what constitutes adverse employment action)