Wilkerson v. Wackenhut Protective Services, Inc.
813 F. Supp. 2d 61
D.D.C.2011Background
- Wilkerson, an African American male, sues Wackenhut for gender discrimination under the DCHRA.
- Wackenhut employed Wilkerson as a security officer on the Walter Reed contract; the company admitted employment.
- Plaintiff allegedly lied on his job application about prior terminations—misrepresentations cited by defendant.
- In September 2008, Wilkerson sought two weeks of vacation; management conditioned the leave on a documented shift swap.
- He attempted a six-shift swap but did not obtain written approval or signatures for the swap.
- He was terminated for allegedly abandoning his shifts; the EEOC later dismissed his discrimination charge; the district court granted summary judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination established under DCHRA? | Wilkerson argues disparate treatment from male vs female coworkers. | Defendant contends no admissible evidence of discrimination. | No prima facie discrimination shown due to lack of admissible evidence. |
| Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination? | Wilkerson contends pretext for discrimination. | Paff believed Wilkerson abandoned his job; termination based on policy. | Defendant's reason deemed legitimate and nondiscriminatory. |
| Admissibility of evidence supporting discrimination claim? | Evidence from unsworn or unauthenticated documents should be admissible. | Such documents are inadmissible on summary judgment. | Unswn/unauthenticated materials excluded; cannot defeat summary judgment. |
| Pretext evidence at summary judgment standard? | Show the employer’s reasons are pretext for male-targeted discipline. | Employer honestly believed abandonment occurred; no credible pretext shown. | No evidence of pretext; reasons accepted as honest belief. |
| Impact of after-acquired evidence on relief? | Not discussed as a controlling factor at summary judgment; moot if no liability. | Issue moot; court grants summary judgment on discrimination claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (pretext and burden-shifting guidance at summary judgment)
- Fishback v. D.C. Dep't of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (employer's legitimate reasons and pretext analysis at summary judgment)
- Vatel v. Alliance of Auto. Manufacturers, 627 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (employer's belief and credibility standard in pretext analysis)
- Jackson v. Finnegan, 101 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (evidence standard on summary judgment and admissibility of affidavits)