Youssef v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
762 F. Supp. 2d 76
D.D.C.2011Background
- Youssef, an FBI Supervisory Special Agent, sued under Title VII alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation.
- The court previously granted partial summary judgment; only retaliation claim proceeded to a nine-day jury trial.
- The jury found no materially adverse action by the FBI in denying inspection opportunities; judgment entered for FBI and costs were taxed against Youssef.
- Post-trial, Youssef moved for a new trial and for costs review/stay; defendants opposed.
- The court bifurcated trial to decide liability first and remedy later, excluding evidence about specific promotions tied to inspection certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict on adverse action was against the weight of the evidence | Youssef argues denials of inspections were a significant, promotional barrier. | FBI contends denials were temporary, not a material adverse action, and promotions depend on multiple factors. | No manifest error; verdict not against weight of the evidence. |
| Whether pretrial bifurcation and rulings prejudiced Youssef | Pretrial rulings prevented proving how denials harmed career prospects. | Rules governed equitable relief; evidence limited to avoid confusion; decisions proper under FRE/EVID. | Pretrial rulings not prejudicial; proper management under Rule 403. |
| Whether the court should grant a new trial under Rule 59 | Weight of evidence supports new trial remedy. | Trial record supported the jury's conclusion; no manifest error. | Deny motion for new trial. |
| Whether costs should be reviewed/adjusted | Costs should be minimized to avoid chilling civil rights suits; many items questioned. | prevailing party entitled to costs; challenged items are taxable. | GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART; revised bill of costs ordered with specific reductions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (antiretaliation standard requires material adversity)
- Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (denial of tangible opportunity to advance career matters)
- Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (refusal to allow employee to compete for promotion actionable)
- Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (employment actions presumed adverse actions in Title VII context)
- Long v. Howard Univ., 561 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2008) (costs normally awarded to prevailing party; need good reason to deny)
- Johnson v. Holway, 522 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2007) (necessity of deposition transcripts assessed at time of deposition)