Warr v. Hagel
14 F. Supp. 3d 1244
E.D. Mo.2014Background
- Clement Warr, an African-American NGA visual information specialist, was orally admonished in July 2009 for leaving work early without permission and inaccurately recording his departure time.
- Warr complained that coworkers had attended an approved off-site party during work hours; supervisors verified time records and found the outing was approved.
- For the Oct. 2008–Sept. 2009 period Warr received an overall "minimally successful" rating; supervisors cited multiple performance deficiencies (missed meetings, missed deadlines, poor communication, etc.).
- In Jan.–Feb. 2010 NGA eliminated the second shift for financial reasons; Warr (a voluntary second-shift worker) was moved to first shift and was ineligible for a STIL second-shift opening because he did not have a “fully satisfactory” rating.
- After Grothoff became Warr’s supervisor, Warr was placed on a 90-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in Feb. 2010 for "unacceptable" performance; his performance later improved and he was not disciplined further.
- Warr filed EEO complaints alleging race discrimination and retaliation; NGA moved for summary judgment and the court granted it, dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral admonishment, unfavorable evaluation, and PIP constitute adverse employment actions for Title VII discrimination/retaliation | Warr: these actions were adverse and motivated by race/retaliation after he complained | NGA: the admonishment is the least severe discipline and evaluation/PIP caused no loss of pay, title, or benefits | Court: not adverse as a matter of law; trivial/minor personnel actions insufficient |
| Whether denial of STIL second-shift position and reassignment to first shift were discriminatory/retaliatory | Warr: denial of second-shift placement and shift change were retaliatory/discriminatory | NGA: second shift eliminated for financial reasons; eligibility required "fully satisfactory" rating which Warr lacked | Court: NGA offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons; no evidence of pretext or discriminatory motive |
| Whether NGA’s proffered reasons were pretext for discrimination/retaliation | Warr: supervisors used a time-sheet note to lower his evaluation and retaliate after his complaints | NGA: proffered reasons (unauthorized early departure, documented performance issues, objective eligibility rules) are true and supported | Court: Warr offered no admissible evidence to show pretext; self-serving assertions and coworker opinions insufficient |
| Whether Title VII remedy is available vs. § 1981 for federal employment discrimination | Warr asserted § 1981 claims | NGA argued Title VII is the exclusive remedy in federal employment | Court: § 1981 claim dismissed; Title VII is the exclusive judicial remedy for federal employment discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard and view of facts in favor of non-movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment: genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (burden-shifting and proof of pretext at summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for disparate-treatment proof)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer’s production burden and shift-back to plaintiff)
- Jackman v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Dept. of Correctional Servs., 728 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2013) (elements of prima facie case; adverse employment action definition)