Dunn v. Collins

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the Department of Veterans Affairs’ motion for summary judgment in Sylvia Dunn’s employment-discrimination action. The court holds that Dunn failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her race-discrimination claims, most sex-discrimination claims, and some retaliation claims. The court also concludes that her remaining exhausted sex-discrimination and retaliation claims lack sufficient evidentiary support to proceed to a jury.

Holdings

1. Dunn failed to exhaust her Title VII race-discrimination claims because her EEO complaint did not mention race or raise race-based discrimination.
2. Dunn failed to exhaust most of her discrete sex-discrimination claims because her EEO complaint raised sex only in connection with a hostile work environment, which is distinct from discrete discriminatory acts.
3. Dunn exhausted only the retaliation allegations identified in her amended EEO complaint; she did not exhaust later allegations, including that defendants fabricated false claims against her.
4. Summary judgment was proper on Dunn's potentially exhausted discrete sex-discrimination claim because the claim was not pleaded in the complaint and, in any event, Dunn did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an adverse employment action or an inference of sex discrimination.
5. Dunn failed to establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation because she did not show that the alleged acts were materially adverse, that some acts occurred, or that a causal link connected the acts to her protected activity; the government's legitimate reasons also were not shown to be pretextual.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dunn exhausted her administrative remedies for her Title VII race-discrimination, sex-discrimination, and retaliation claims.
2. Whether Dunn presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on the discrete-act sex-discrimination claim based on the alleged reassignment of EEO responsibilities.
3. Whether Dunn presented sufficient evidence of materially adverse actions and causation to survive summary judgment on her retaliation claims.

Disposition

other