Diamond v. Atwood, Nos. 93-5235 and 93-5246

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBefore BUCKLEY, GINSBURG and HENDERSON; KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON
Citation43 F.3d 1538
Parties66 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1249, 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,447, 310 U.S.App.D.C. 113 Dennis DIAMOND, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Brian ATWOOD, Administrator, Agency for International Development, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Decision Date20 January 1995
Docket NumberNos. 93-5235 and 93-5246

Page 1538

43 F.3d 1538
66 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1249,
66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,447, 310 U.S.App.D.C. 113
Dennis DIAMOND, Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
Brian ATWOOD, Administrator, Agency for International
Development, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 93-5235 and 93-5246.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 20, 1994.
Decided Jan. 20, 1995.

Sally M. Rider, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, DC, argued the cause for the appellant/cross-appellee. On brief were Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Atty., and R. Craig Lawrence and John D. Bates, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, DC, John R. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, DC, entered an appearance.

Michael J. Kator, Washington, DC, argued the cause for the appellee/cross-appellant. On brief was Richard A. Salzman, Washington, DC.

Before BUCKLEY, GINSBURG and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON.

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge:

J. Brian Atwood, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development (AID), appeals the grant of summary judgment against him and his agency based on an employment discrimination claim brought by Dennis Diamond (Diamond) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq. The district court held that AID was bound as a matter of law by its delegee's finding of unlawful employment discrimination. We disagree. The delegee's proposed disposition of Diamond's complaint does not bind AID because it was neither adopted by AID nor finally decided by the delegee. Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand the case for trial.

I.

The relevant facts are undisputed. AID hired Diamond in its Office of Equal Opportunity Programs (EOP) in April 1982. He became Acting Director of EOP in January 1985 when the incumbent was transferred to another agency. In April 1988, the agency declared a vacancy in the position. Diamond and other qualified candidates applied. Jessalyn

Page 1539

Pendarvis, a black female, was selected in February 1989 as EOP Director. Diamond, a white male, was reassigned to the AID Office of General Counsel as an attorney advisor. Believing that the EOP Director selection decision involved race and sex discrimination, Diamond timely sought informal counseling regarding his grievance. In May 1989, he filed a formal complaint of discrimination against the EOP office which is charged with investigating and resolving discrimination complaints against the agency. AID regulations directed that such complaints be referred to the AID Office of General Counsel or to another federal agency. AID Handbook 24 at 5A-3 (effective Nov. 28, 1983) (attached as tab 10 to Statement of Material Facts filed March 25, 1992). Because of the conflicts of interest caused by Pendarvis heading the EOP office and Diamond serving as an attorney advisor in the Office of General Counsel, AID delegated to the Department of State (State) the authority to investigate and take final agency action on Diamond's complaint. In a letter dated June 6, 1989, and addressed to Clarence Hodges, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights at State, AID proposed to "transfer to [State] the authority to perform all functions of the complaint processing ... beginning with the acceptance/rejection determination through the issuance of a Final Agency Decision." Joint Appendix (JA) 72. Two days later, State accepted the delegation.

State hired a private investigator to inquire into Diamond's allegations and to draft a proposed resolution of his complaint. In October 1989, the investigator completed her inquiry and submitted her findings and proposed disposition to State. The investigator's proposal concluded that Diamond "was not selected for the position ... because of his race (white) and sex (male), after serving as Acting Director with an outstanding record for four years." JA 20. On July 6, 1990, Ronald Roskens, the AID Administrator, requested in writing that Hodges's successor, Audrey Morton, "complete [her] analysis and render a judgment and final decision in this case." JA 77.

Morton forwarded the proposed disposition on October 24, 1990 to the AID Administrator and explained his options. JA 20-21. 1 On November 9, 1990, Acting AID Administrator Mark Edelman returned the proposed disposition to Morton "for handling," noting that the reason for the delegation "remains as valid today as it was last year." JA 22. Edelman also highlighted defects in the proposed disposition which he requested Morton to correct "before issuing it under [her] signature." Id. On November 26, 1990, Morton returned the proposed disposition to the AID Administrator. She explained that she did not intend to sign it because AID's delegation to State was "legally defective" and therefore any "issuance of a decision under [her] signature would not ... be enforceable nor [sic] binding on either party." JA 24. 2

Page 1540

Subsequent negotiations between AID and Diamond were unsuccessful. Diamond then filed suit in district court under Title VII, alleging race and sex discrimination.

The district court granted summary judgment to Diamond, holding that "a government agency is bound by the results of an administrative determination favorable to its employee upon a complaint of employment discrimination, and is not entitled to a de novo trial and judgment in federal court." Diamond v. Roskens, 790 F.Supp. 350, 353 (D.D.C.1992). It concluded that summary judgment was appropriate because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
461 practice notes
  • Louisiana Federal Land Bank v. Farm Credit Admin., No. Civ.A.00-1582(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 23 Agosto 2001
    ...of law. See FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1995). Courts have defined a genuine issue as one that could change the outcome of the litigation. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby......
  • Goldring v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7116.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 26 Julio 2005
    ...July 28, 2004. We have jurisdiction to entertain their appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and on de novo review, see, e.g., Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1995), we affirm the district court. II. The question whether the IDEA's fee-shifting provision — section 1415 — enables a pr......
  • U.S. ex rel. Long v. Scs Bus. & Tech. Institute, No. CIV. A. 92-2092 (EGS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 26 Marzo 1998
    ...light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 Long filed his original complaint, under seal, in September 1992. Long later filed an amended complaint on March 15, 1995, in which h......
  • Deloatch v. Harris Teeter, Inc., Civil Action No. 10–205 (RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 13 Julio 2011
    ...law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1995). To determine which facts are “material,” a court must look to the substantive law on which each claim rests. Anderson ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
461 cases
  • Louisiana Federal Land Bank v. Farm Credit Admin., No. Civ.A.00-1582(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 23 Agosto 2001
    ...of law. See FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1995). Courts have defined a genuine issue as one that could change the outcome of the litigation. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby......
  • Goldring v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7116.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 26 Julio 2005
    ...July 28, 2004. We have jurisdiction to entertain their appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and on de novo review, see, e.g., Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1995), we affirm the district court. II. The question whether the IDEA's fee-shifting provision — section 1415 — enables a pr......
  • U.S. ex rel. Long v. Scs Bus. & Tech. Institute, No. CIV. A. 92-2092 (EGS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 26 Marzo 1998
    ...light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 Long filed his original complaint, under seal, in September 1992. Long later filed an amended complaint on March 15, 1995, in which h......
  • Deloatch v. Harris Teeter, Inc., Civil Action No. 10–205 (RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 13 Julio 2011
    ...law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1995). To determine which facts are “material,” a court must look to the substantive law on which each claim rests. Anderson ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT