876 F. Supp. 2d 594
D. Maryland2012Background
- Westmoreland is an African-American female firefighter who began with Prince George’s County Fire Department in 1989 and rose to Fire Lieutenant, retiring in 2009.
- In 2005 she was assigned to the Fire/EMS Training Academy, starting as a Fire Fighter III before moving to supervisory/classroom roles at the Academy.
- In 2006 she faced a cheating-scandal allegation for allegedly spoon-feeding answers to recruits during a promotional test and filed an internal EEO complaint on June 30, 2006.
- Shortly after, the County attempted to transfer her from the Academy; the transfer was reversed in July 2006, but she was moved again in October 2006 to Station 40, with claims that her job duties changed significantly.
- The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter in June 2009, and about three months later she filed this action alleging sex/race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment; the Court has since addressed multiple motions, including a county summary-judgment motion and Westmoreland’s motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case for gender/race discrimination | Westmoreland satisfied elements through transfer and treatment | No adverse action or proper comparators, or not outside protected class | Triable issues existed on discrimination claim under McDonnell Douglas |
| Whether the transfer to Station 40 was an adverse employment action | Transfer significantly changed duties and increased stress | No significant detrimental effect or decrease in compensation/title | Material fact question; transfer could be adverse action under Title VII |
| Nondiscriminatory reasons and pretext | County’s reasons false or pretextual given her EEO activity | Reasons tied to cheating scandal and conduct toward recruits | Disputed issues of fact; pretext evidence present for discrimination claim |
| Mixed-motive and retaliation theories | Discrimination tainted decisions; potentially mixed-motive applicability | No direct evidence of discrimination; mixed-motive not shown for retaliation | Mixed-motive instruction available for discrimination; retaliation lacks direct evidence; no mixed-motive instruction for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdine v. Hicks, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed-m motive analysis; direct evidence not required under §2000e-2(m))
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework; employer’s explanation can be deemed false)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (means of proving ‘because of’ sex via comparative or direct evidence)
- Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2004) (intersectional theory; interrelation of sex/race discrimination claims)