Williams v. Walker, 806 F. Supp. 2d 246

Plaintiff Diane Williams, a former GAO PAB/OGC Senior Trial Attorney, sues in official capacity of the Comptroller General alleging Title VII and ADEA claims, later narrowed to retaliation claims from April 2006 non-promotion, July 2006 reprimand, and December 2008 termination.
The court previously granted partial summary judgment on some claims; remaining retaliation claims proceeded, with termination-based retaliation litigated after Williams’ December 2008 termination.
April 2006: Williams requested a non-competitive accretion of duties promotion (GS-14 to GS-15) and discussed a desk audit; new supervisor Wagner was unfamiliar with Williams’ work and not yet empowered to grant the promotion.
June–July 2006: Wagner received and pursued inquiries about a potential conflict involving Doheny and GRA; July 2006 reprimand issued for Williams’ alleged noncooperation and failure to provide information.
December 2008: Williams was terminated after a multi-charge Notice of Proposed Removal alleging deliberate misrepresentation, insubordination, and concealment of a material fact, based on two cases (Jones v. GAO and Beyah v. Walker) and related interview-note issues.
The court’s decision: grant partial summary judgment for the April 2006 non-promotion retaliation claim (exhaustion and other reasons defeated), but deny summary judgment on the July 2006 reprimand and December 2008 termination retaliation claims, allowing trial on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams exhausted the April 2006 non-promotion retaliation claim	Williams exhausted by EEO pleadings but earlier filings referenced only January 2006	April 2006 claim undiscovered/exhausted as a separate discrete event	Exhaustion lacking; April 2006 claim barred; merits considered but grant for exhaustion reason
Whether the July 2006 reprimand was retaliatory	Reprimand tied to protected activity and pretext shown by timing and conduct	Reprimand for insubordination, legitimate non-retaliatory rationale	Summary judgment denied; triable issue as to pretext and retaliatory motive
Whether Williams’ termination was retaliatory	Evidence of retaliation via EEO activity and documents showing pretext	Termination based on legitimate charged misconduct; no pretext proven	Summary judgment denied on termination claim; factfinder to weigh motives under totality of circumstances

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (exhaustion of administrative remedies prerequisite to court action)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (discrete acts and exhaustion rules for claims in Title VII/ADA cases)
Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (totality-of-the-evidence approach in retaliation cases)
Porter v. Natsios, 414 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (mixed-motive analysis and its applicability to retaliation claims)