926 F. Supp. 2d 106
D.D.C.2013Background
- Whiting was a short-term Labat-Anderson contractor to DOJ for a 90-day period ending Sept. 30, 2008.
- Whiting was supervised on-site by Kathy Davis-Hall and reassigned from Second Circuit work to the DOJ records department amid performance concerns.
- Two August 11, 2008 incidents with DOJ paralegal Shirley Phelps involved hugging and touching Whiting, leading Whiting to object and later report the conduct.
- Whiting informed her supervisor the afternoon of August 11; she did not file a formal complaint at that time but sought reassignment; Labat-Hall implemented a procedural change to limit contact.
- Whiting distributed a written statement titled “A Sexual Harassment Complaint Against Shirley Phelps” about a month later, prompting HR involvement and a transfer to a different building; she kept essentially the same duties and pay after transfer.
- Whiting’s short-term assignment ended September 30, 2008, with Labat-Anderson terminating all 20 provisional positions; DOJ later requested continued employment for a subset of workers, but Whiting did not reapply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Labat-Anderson can be liable for harassment by a non-employee | Whiting argues the two incidents show sex-based harassment and that Labat-Anderson’s response was inadequate | Labat-Anderson acted promptly and effectively to remove Whiting from contact with the harasser and did not fail to take remedial action | No respondeat superior liability; court finds no basis to impute harassment to Labat-Anderson |
| Whether Whiting’s termination was retaliatory | Whiting contends the transfer and eventual firing were in retaliation for reporting harassment | Termination was due to the end of the 90-day short-term contract and funding; no pretext shown | Summary judgment for Labat-Anderson; termination was legitimate and not retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Coastal Int'l Sec., Inc., 275 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (elements of Title VII harassment and vicarious liability principles)
- Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims)
- Simms v. Ctr. for Corr. Health & Policy Studies, 794 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2011) (employer knowledge and prompt remedial action standard)
- Carter v. Greenspan, 304 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2004) (employer actions in response to harassment can be reasonable and timely)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (EEOC charge scope and related claims in Title VII litigation)
- Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (pretext and non-discriminatory reasons in retaliation analysis)