Wilson v. LaHood
815 F. Supp. 2d 333
D.D.C.2011Background
- Wilson, an FHWA accountant, was promoted to GS-12 and alleges entitlement to a non-competitive GS-13 promotion since 2006.
- In December 2007, Wilson requested non-competitive GS-13 promotion and contends he faced a surprise test outside his duties.
- He filed an EEO complaint alleging race and age discrimination in December 2007; later added retaliation and hostile environment claims.
- DOT OCR investigated; the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim in October 2009.
- In March 2010 Wilson sued the Secretary of Transportation; the court later limited claims to race discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation.
- The court grants summary judgment for the Secretary on the discrimination and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination prima facie and pretext | Wilson was denied GS-13 promotion due to race. | Promotion decisions based on Accountant Proficiency Chart; race not a factor. | No prima facie showing; no pretext; granted summary judgment for Secretary on race discrimination. |
| Age discrimination prima facie and pretext | Denied GS-13 due to age and race. | Promotion based on proficiency and merit; age not a factor. | No viable age-discrimination case; summary judgment for Secretary on age discrimination. |
| Retaliation | Challenged leave-without-pay action as retaliation for prior discrimination claim. | No adverse action; leave issue not proven as materially adverse. | Conceded on retaliation; Secretary granted summary judgment; Count V dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (rebuttable presumption in discrimination framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes pretext framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; evidence must be more than de minimis)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting on summary judgment)
- Royall v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 548 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (prima facie case framework for discrimination)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discrimination analysis flow in disparate-treatment actions)
- Barbour v. Browner, 181 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (court will not reexamine employer's business decisions)