Jones v. Bernanke

• Decision Date: 06 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-5092.,08-5092.
• Citation: 557 F.3d 670
• Parties: Charles Blaine JONES, Appellant v. Ben S. BERNANKE, Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

557 F.3d 670

Charles Blaine JONES, Appellant v. Ben S. BERNANKE, Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, Appellee.

No. 08-5092.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued December 5, 2008.

Decided March 6, 2009.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:04-cv-01696).

Michael G. Kane argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was David R. Cashdan.

John L. Kuray, Senior Counsel, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Richard M. Ashton, Deputy General Counsel, and Katherine H. Wheatley, Associate General Counsel. R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

TATEL, Circuit Judge:

In this employment discrimination case, the district court, finding that the employee had failed to make out a prima facie case of either discrimination or retaliation, granted summary judgment to the employer. We affirm as to the discrimination claims on the alternative ground that they were not properly before the district court. But we reverse and remand as to the retaliation claims. Given that the employer asserted its legitimate, non-retaliatory explanation, our precedent required the district court to abandon its focus on perceived deficiencies in the prima facie case and to proceed instead to the only issue properly before it, i.e., the question of retaliation vel non.

I.

After working for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for seven years and earning two promotions during that period, appellant Charles Blaine Jones sought a third promotion to a managerial position in March 1998. At that time Jones was 49 years old. Jones's second-level supervisor, Michael Martinson, interviewed several candidates including Jones and selected Heidi Richards, a 34-year-old woman. Believing Richards to be less qualified for the position than he, Jones complained to Martinson about her selection. In response Martinson assured Jones that he would soon be promoted to another position. But receiving no promotion despite Martinson's and other supervisors' repeated assurances, Jones filed an informal complaint with the Board's EEO office in November 1999 and a formal complaint in January 2000. In his complaint Jones alleged that when the Board denied him promotion to the managerial position in favor of a younger woman, it discriminated against him on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 633a. During its investigation, the EEO office obtained affidavits from Martinson and other witnesses, including Richards who had by then become Jones's first-level supervisor. On September 22, 2000, at the conclusion of the investigation, Jones sent a letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requesting a hearing before an administrative law judge. Central to one of the issues before us, he sent a copy of that request to the Board's EEO office.

Approximately one month later, on October 25, Jones received from Richards a draft of his annual performance evaluation for the period September 1999 to October 2000. Although prior evaluations had rated Jones's overall performance as either "outstanding" or "exceptional," the 2000 evaluation reduced his rating to "commendable" — the third of five possible categories and just one level above "marginal." Signed by both Richards and Martinson, the evaluation explained (among other things) that Jones had failed to complete two assigned projects. Jones's supervisors continued to rate his performance as only "commendable" in his 2001, 2002, and 2003 evaluations. Believing these evaluations misrepresented his actual performance, Jones amended his administrative complaint to allege that his supervisors retaliated against him for his complaints of age and gender discrimination by downgrading his annual performance ratings.

The EEOC administrative judge dismissed Jones's discrimination claims for untimely counselor contact. As to the retaliation claims, the administrative judge found insufficient evidence to question the Board's explanation that the 2000-2003 evaluations reflected honest assessments of Jones's performance and so granted summary judgment to the Board. The Board subsequently adopted the administrative judge's recommendations, dismissed Jones's complaint, and notified him that he had ninety days from receipt of the decision to file a civil action in district court should he choose to do so. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (setting forth ninety-day filing requirement); Price v. Bernanke, 470 F.3d 384, 389 (D.C.Cir.2006) (applying Title VII's ninety-day requirement to ADEA claims).

Jones then filed a timely complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Board had retaliated against him for his complaints of gender and age discrimination in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The Board moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. Jones opposed the motion and moved for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). While those motions were pending and nearly a year after the filing of the original complaint, Jones moved to amend his complaint to add the Title VII and ADEA discrimination claims based on his non-promotion. Opposing the motion, the Board argued that the discrimination claims were untimely because Jones had failed to bring them within ninety days of receiving the notice of final agency action.

Without passing on Jones's Rule 56(f) motion, the district court granted in part and denied in part the Board's motion for summary judgment. See Jones v. Greenspan, 402 F.Supp.2d 294, 303 (D.D.C. 2005). Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), the district court concluded that Jones had satisfied his prima facie burden for his retaliation claims arising from the 2000 evaluation. Jones, 402 F.Supp.2d at 301-02. The district court also concluded that Jones had offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that the evaluation was retaliatory rather than an honest assessment of Jones's performance. Id. As to the 2001-2003 evaluations, however, the court ruled that because Jones had demonstrated no temporal proximity between his protected activity and the adverse evaluations during those years, he failed to satisfy his prima facie burden. Id. at 302-03. Thus, although the court denied the Board's summary judgment motion on Jones's retaliation claims arising from his 2000 evaluation, it granted the motion as to the three later evaluations. Id. at 303.

Next the district court granted Jones's motion to amend the complaint, allowing him to add his gender and age discrimination claims to the lawsuit. Jones v. Greenspan, 445 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2006). In response the Board filed an answer to the amended complaint and moved to dismiss the new claims or, alternatively, for summary judgment. Jones opposed the motion, again seeking Rule 56(f) discovery. Denying discovery, the district court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, finding that Jones had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Jones v. Bernanke, 493 F.Supp.2d 18, 23 (D.D.C.2007).

Finally the district court revisited its earlier denial of summary judgment on the retaliation claims arising from the 2000 evaluation, concluding this time that Jones had in fact failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Jones v. Bernanke, 538 F.Supp.2d 53, 56 (D.D.C.2008). The court explained that its original denial of summary judgment "was at least partially based on the incorrect assumption that the plaintiff proved its prima facie case," id. at 64 — an error the court explained it made because it "overlooked [Jones]'s inability to establish that his supervisors had knowledge of the protected activity," id. at 56. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment and "dismiss[ed]" this claim as well. Id. at 64.

Jones now appeals, challenging both the denial of discovery and the grant of summary judgment on his discrimination and retaliation claims. We review the denial of a Rule 56(f) motion for abuse of discretion. Dunning v. Quander, 508 F.3d 8, 9 (D.C.Cir.2007). We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo and may affirm only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Jones and giving him the benefit of all permissible inferences, we conclude that no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in his favor. Carter v. George Washington Univ., 387 F.3d 872, 878 (D.C.Cir.2004). And "because we review the district court's judgment, not its reasoning, we may affirm on any ground properly raised." EEOC v. Aramark Corp., 208 F.3d 266, 268 (D.C.Cir.2000).

II.

We begin with Jones's argument that the district court erred by granting the Board summary judgment on his discrimination claims and denying him Rule 56(f) discovery in the process. According to the Board, we needn't address either issue, as Jones's discrimination claims were not properly before the district court in the first place. We agree.

Nearly a year after Jones sued the Board for retaliation, he moved to amend his complaint to add the underlying discrimination claims. The Board opposed the amendment, arguing that the discrimination claims were untimely because Jones had failed to bring them within the required ninety-day period. See § 2000e-16(c); Price, 470 F.3d at 389. The district court disagreed, holding that "[b]ecause the amended complaint builds on previously alleged facts and because the defendant had notice of the...