Wilson v. Clayton
272 F. Supp. 3d 25
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Jacqueline Wilson, an African-American SEC employee, worked as an SK-17 Supervisory Auditor in the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and was detailed then permanently transferred to the Office of Human Resources (OHR) in November 2014.
- Wilson contacted an EEO counselor in November 2013 about alleged harassment and discrimination but did not file a formal complaint at that time; she contacted an EEO counselor again in December 2014 and filed a formal complaint on February 23, 2015.
- The SEC accepted for investigation only one claim: that Wilson was involuntarily transferred from OIG to OHR on November 16, 2014; the agency issued a Final Agency Decision finding no unlawful discrimination.
- Wilson sued in federal court within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue notice, alleging Title VII race and sex discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and ADEA age discrimination, premised on six discrete acts (harassment, non-selection, poor evaluation, detail extensions, permanent transfer, pay disparities).
- The SEC moved to dismiss (treated as partial summary judgment) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies for all discrete acts except the permanent reassignment; the court evaluated timeliness and exhaustion under federal EEO procedures and applicable case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/exhaustion of discrete acts (harassment, non-selection, performance eval, detail extensions, pay prior to transfer) | Wilson argued these acts are part of her claims and some were "reasonably related" to exhausted claims or form a continuing hostile work environment | SEC argued Wilson failed to timely contact an EEO counselor for those discrete acts and did not exhaust them administratively | Court held those discrete acts are time-barred and unexhausted (dismissed) except for pay disparity re: Sharek and the permanent transfer which were exhausted |
| Permanent reassignment to OHR | Wilson asserted transfer was involuntary discrimination and exhausted it in her formal complaint | SEC acknowledged transfer was the only accepted issue for investigation | Court held claim based on November 16, 2014 transfer was properly exhausted and may proceed |
| Pay disparity as to Rebecca Sharek (salary at OIG) | Wilson alleged Sharek (younger, white woman) was paid more in a similar OIG role and raised it in the administrative record | SEC maintained Equal Pay Act was inapplicable and other pay claims were untimely | Court held Wilson adequately exhausted the claim that Sharek was paid more while in similar OIG role; that claim survives for age and race discrimination claims |
| Hostile work environment (continuing violation) | Wilson argued discrete acts form a continuing hostile work environment, saving earlier untimely claims | SEC argued she failed to timely file or pursue a formal complaint in 2013 and the November 2014 act is not similar enough to prior OIG incidents | Court held hostile work environment claim was not exhausted and cannot salvage the earlier untimely acts |
| "Reasonably related" exception | Wilson argued time-barred claims are "reasonably related" to exhausted claims so they may proceed | SEC argued the exception, if available, applies only to claims arising after the administrative filing and is inapplicable here | Court held the exception does not apply because the time-barred acts occurred before the December 2014 administrative contact |
Key Cases Cited
- Natl. R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete discriminatory acts must be timely exhausted; hostile work environment is a single unlawful practice)
- Doak v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (agency may waive exhaustion deadlines by deciding claims on the merits)
- Coleman v. Duke, 867 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (adequate agency notice can satisfy exhaustion even if agency did not accept or discuss claim on the merits)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (elements for hostile work environment: similarity, frequency, same managers)
- Niskey v. Kelly, 859 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (federal employee EEO exhaustion requirements are a prerequisite to suit)
- Center for Auto Safety v. Nat’l Highway Transp. Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule 12(d) treatment where materials outside the pleadings are considered)