Stoe v. Barr

Decision Date29 May 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-5315,18-5315
Citation960 F.3d 627
Parties Debra STOE, Appellant v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Susan E. Huhta argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Julia T. Quinn.

Daniel P. Schaefer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Before: TATEL and PILLARD, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS.

EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge : On August 10, 2016, Debra Stoe, Appellant, filed suit in District Court against the Attorney General of the United States in his official capacity as head of the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). Stoe’s complaint alleged that DOJ had denied her a promotion to a Division Director position because of her gender, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, and her age, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 633a. On August 28, 2018, the District Court issued an order and memorandum opinion granting summary judgment in favor of DOJ. Stoe v. Sessions , 324 F. Supp. 3d 176 (D.D.C. 2018). Stoe filed a timely notice of appeal on October 24, 2018.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). We review the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo , considering the record taken as a whole, Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Stoe, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol , 927 F.3d 561, 565 (D.C. Cir. 2019). We may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Id .

After reviewing the record in this case pursuant to these standards, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that DOJ’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for denying Stoe the promotion that she sought "was pretextual and that discrimination was the real reason." Hamilton v. Geithner , 666 F.3d 1344, 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment against Stoe and remand the case so that it may proceed to trial.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
1. Stoe’s Background and Experience

In 1998, Debra Stoe began working for DOJ as a GS-11 Social Science Analyst in the Office of Research and Evaluation at the National Institute of Justice ("NIJ"). Before starting at DOJ, Stoe had earned a master’s degree and had worked in the private sector for twelve years as an industrial engineer. In 2004, Stoe began working as a GS-14 scientist in the Policy and Standards Division ("Division") of DOJ’s Office of Science and Technology ("OST"). Her position was reclassified as "Physical Scientist" in 2010, and she held that position until 2018.

The Division is responsible for developing performance standards for law enforcement equipment and technology (e.g. , bulletproof body armor), overseeing conformity assessment and compliance testing programs, and developing policy for the adoption and use of law enforcement-related technology.

Stoe’s Work in the Policy and Standards Division. For many years, Stoe was the only program manager in the Division. She developed "new, non-traditional approaches ... needed for the NIJ Standards and Testing Program to reach its full potential," helping to update outmoded standards. Joint Appendix ("JA") 1184. Among her many accomplishments, Stoe redesigned the system for NIJ standards development; she also oversaw the training and work product of other program managers in standards development protocols. One of the program managers who worked under Stoe’s direction was Mark Greene, who was later selected for the Division Director position that Stoe was denied.

Stoe "implemented a new method for developing standards at NIJ called ‘The Special Technical Committee (STC) Process.’ " JA 1331. Her "outstanding leadership led to the publication of the CBRN Certification Document," which was characterized as "the gold standard" in NIJ’s "new STC process." It was predicted to "impact the safety of public safety in immeasurable ways." JA 1409.

Between 2004 to 2014, Stoe’s work performance record was indisputably exemplary. She published at least ten performance standards, including the first standard for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear protective ensembles, and a unique ballistic body armor standard, which became the most downloaded document on NIJ’s website. JA 1179 ¶ 10, 1235, 1409. She also oversaw the development of at least 20 additional standards and test methods. JA 1179 ¶ 10.

According to her superiors, Stoe’s sterling efforts "morphed a one[-]person standards program into a multi-person standards program and in the process morphed her roles and responsibilities from managing grants and interagency agreements to managing a program and administering the activities of others." JA 1433. Stoe’s "leadership and revolutionary transformation of a moribund program ... demonstrated capabilities that the agency never before experienced and ... obtained previously unattainable goals and objectives." JA 1188. And her "leadership and management of NIJ’s standards and testing program ... contributed significantly to taxpayer value," saving the government "several millions [of] dollars." JA 1254. Her "radical revision" of interagency responsibilities eventually received approval from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. JA 1185, 1335-36.

Stoe also significantly revised the Division’s compliance testing and conformity assessment programs to conform them to international protocols. JA 1186, 1402. She brought compliance testing in-house to DOJ, assumed responsibility for working directly with manufacturers and law enforcement stakeholders, and increased the "confidence in the manufacturing quality control process and ultimately in the safety and effectiveness of the equipment sold to [U.S.] criminal justice agencies." JA 1186. Stoe published the Division’s first compliance testing administrative manual, which was adopted by other federal agencies. JA 1409.

Stoe’s Work with the Interagency Committee. In 2011, DOJ appointed Stoe to serve as its alternate representative on the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy ("ICSP"). The ICSP is a cabinet-level working group on standards, and it is comprised of representatives from over thirty federal agencies. Although Stoe was designated as DOJ’s "alternate" ICSP representative, she was "doing the real work," JA 1370, because the primary DOJ representative did not attend meetings, JA 1380.

Stoe’s Grants Management Responsibilities . In connection with her standards and compliance testing programs, Stoe also had substantial grants management responsibilities. By 2014, she had distributed over $30 million in federal funds to support government-funded third-party research. JA 1180 ¶ 12. The record indicates that Stoe did "an outstanding job managing grants and portfolios, consistently tracking and following" grants with "no late grant closeouts ... or outstanding issues." JA 1235.

Stoe’s Performance Evaluations from 2010 to 2014. Between 2010 and 2014, Davis Hart was Stoe’s first-line supervisor and George "Chris" Tillery was Stoe’s second-line supervisor. Both acknowledged that, although Stoe was in a GS-14 position, she was working at a GS-15 level. See JA 1191, 1179 ¶¶ 7-9, 1110. In 2010, Stoe spoke to Tillery about the discrepancy between her classification and the actual work she was doing, and he agreed that she was performing GS-15 level work. However, Stoe had to raise the issue several times with Tillery before he formally requested a desk audit for her in May 2012. Some of the GS-15 level work performed by Stoe included supervising and managing the standards testing, conformity assessment, and compliance testing programs, and representing DOJ on the ICSP.

Stoe’s performance reviews, co-authored by Tillery and Hart, consistently rated her at "exceeds expectations." See, e.g. , JA 1191, 1382, 1392, 1401, 1408. Her personnel file is replete with glowing comments on the quality of her work and the significant impact of her efforts on public safety. See, e.g. , JA 1409. In 2010, Stoe received the Assistant Attorney General Employee of the Year Award, and in 2012 and 2013, she was nominated for the Samuel Heyman Service to America for Justice and Law Enforcement Award. And she was a coveted speaker at national and international conferences on standards and testing. JA 1185, 1383, 1402.

In 2013, Stoe’s review stated that her "performance exceeded expectations to an exceptional degree in all elements. She consistently demonstrated unusually high initiative in performing job responsibilities and consistently performed in a manner, which is significantly beyond what is expected." JA 1383. It also noted that her performance was "made particularly exceptional by the fact that her immediate supervisor’s position was vacant during much of the reporting period." JA 1383. And her superiors acknowledged that they could not "do full credit to the span of [her] work in the space available." JA 1383. At her 2014 mid-year evaluation, Stoe asked Tillery if there was anything she could improve on, and he responded, "[N]o, you cannot improve ... on excellence. You can’t improve on somebody that exceeds at everything." JA 106.

2. Alleged Gender Bias Issues with Tillery

Stoe was one of two women in OST, which had approximately fourteen employees.

Tillery ran OST and was Stoe’s second-level supervisor beginning in 2010. Christine Crossland, who was in the Office of Research and Evaluation, a parallel division within NIJ which works closely with OST, shared office space with Stoe and routinely interacted with her. JA 1173...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Jeffries v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 14, 2020
    ...he seeks to collect the very types of evidence that we have previously held probative of pretext. See, e.g. , Stoe v. Barr , 960 F.3d 627, 632, 634, 636 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ; Wheeler v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp. , 812 F.3d 1109, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2016). I see no reason to cut off Jeffries's discove......
  • Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • September 25, 2020
    ...under Title V of the CARES Act. We review de novo this legal ruling, which was appropriately made on summary judgment. Stoe v. Barr , 960 F.3d 627, 629 (D.C. Cir. 2020). In considering the difficult legal question now before us, we have benefitted greatly from the district court's two thoug......
  • Spence v. United States Dep't of Veterans Affairs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 12, 2022
    ... ... 792, 802-05 (1973), in weighing ... both discrimination and retaliation claims under either Title ... VII or the ADEA. See Stoe v. Barr, 960 F.3d 627, 639 ... (D.C. Cir. 2020) (applying framework to Title VII claims); ... Ford v. Mabus, 629 F.3d 198, 201 (D.C ... ...
  • Chatman v. Perdue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 15, 2020
    ...the three-part burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973). See Stoe v. Barr, 960 F.3d 627, 639 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (applying framework to Title VII claims); Ford v. Mabus, 629 F.3d 198, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (applying framework to ADEA c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • May 1, 2023
    ...of interview performances and dubious scoring systems can be used to cover up discriminatory hiring practices,” Stoe v. Barr , 960 F.3d 627, 644 (D.C. Cir. 2020), and that, “although employers may of course take subjective considerations into account in their employment decisions, courts tr......

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