Andrew Mattioda v. Jim Bridenstine

Background

Andrew Mattioda had worked as a scientist for NASA at its Ames Research Center since 2007. He alleged disability-based discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal law that prohibits disability discrimination in covered federal employment. Earlier orders dismissed his claims for harassment, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation. They left only his disability-discrimination claim and limited it to timely events, generally those occurring on or after July 7, 2015. Evidence of earlier conduct could potentially be used as background evidence for a timely claim.

NASA moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that no genuine dispute of material fact required a trial. Under the burden-shifting framework applied to the claim, Mattioda first had to present enough evidence to support an initial showing of discrimination. NASA then had to identify legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, after which Mattioda had to present evidence that those reasons were a pretext, meaning an explanation hiding unlawful discrimination.

2015 performance review

Mattioda challenged a 2015 review in which he received the highest rating for laboratory work and the second-highest rating for instrument development. He argued that the lower rating was based partly on his failure to attend an American Chemical Society meeting after a doctor advised him not to fly because of an ear infection. NASA argued that the review had not affected his bonus or other employment conditions.

The court found that Mattioda had not shown that the review affected his bonus, but it held that an allegedly undeserved negative performance review can itself be an adverse employment action. The court also found that Mattioda presented enough evidence to create a factual dispute about whether the review was connected to his disability. NASA’s reliance on the supervisor’s prior favorable ratings and assistance with reconsideration did not eliminate that dispute. The court concluded that NASA had not rebutted Mattioda’s initial showing and did not reach the pretext issue. NASA’s motion for summary judgment on this claim was DENIED.

2016 transfer

Mattioda’s third-level supervisor offered him a voluntary six-month transfer between NASA branches after Mattioda filed employment complaints against supervisors. Mattioda accepted the transfer and later asked to extend it. His title, salary, hours, and responsibilities remained largely the same, and he testified that his work environment improved.

The court held that Mattioda had not shown that the transfer was an adverse employment action because he provided no evidence that the new position was objectively less desirable or materially changed his employment conditions. The court also held that, even assuming an initial showing of discrimination, NASA offered a legitimate reason: addressing workplace conflict and improving Mattioda’s work environment. Mattioda did not show that reason was a pretext. NASA’s motion for summary judgment on the transfer claim was GRANTED.

2017 senior-scientist selection

NASA selected Dr. Scott Sandford instead of Mattioda for a senior-scientist position. The selection panel rated Sandford higher, unanimously recommended him, and the decisionmaker selected him. Mattioda challenged the use of citation-index and deep-space-mission-experience criteria, the panel’s composition and methods, the handling of his disability-related leave, and the alleged influence of a supervisor under the “cat’s paw” theory, which can attribute a biased employee’s influence to the employer when that influence affects the final decision.

The court held that Mattioda’s evidence raised process disagreements but did not connect the selection decision to his disability. It found no direct evidence of discriminatory comments, no evidence that the allegedly biased supervisor had discriminatory intent that influenced the panel, and no evidence that the citation-index information was inaccurate or used discriminatorily. The court also found that NASA had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for selecting Sandford: the panel independently and unanimously considered Sandford the stronger candidate, and Mattioda acknowledged that Sandford had greater experience in several relevant areas. Mattioda did not show pretext. NASA’s motion for summary judgment on this claim was GRANTED.

Travel requests and funding

Mattioda challenged requirements related to premium-class travel connected to his disability-related travel needs, including obtaining approvals and including travel expenses in grant budgets. The court assumed for purposes of the motion that these events could support an initial showing because they appeared connected to his accommodation-related travel requests.

The court nevertheless found that NASA had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanations. Travel was funded through grants, rather than a central travel account, and the relevant supervisors or grant managers therefore had reasons to request approvals and budget information. Mattioda did not show that these explanations were a pretext. NASA’s motion for summary judgment on the travel-related claims was GRANTED.

Fabrication-project funding request

Mattioda argued that a supervisor discriminated against him by requiring permission from the manager of a grant connected to a fabrication project. The court found no evidence that the supervisor demanded such permission because of Mattioda’s disability or treated him differently from employees without disabilities. The court also found that NASA had legitimate reasons for asking about available grant funding and that Mattioda did not show those reasons were a pretext. NASA’s motion for summary judgment on this issue was GRANTED.

Comments and exclusion from a meeting

Mattioda cited comments describing him as lazy, incompetent, ineffective, or a troublemaker, as well as his exclusion from a work meeting. The court found that the comments and exclusion did not expressly refer to his disability and that Mattioda had not provided evidence tying them to disability discrimination. The court also stated that isolated remarks, without a connection to an adverse employment action, were insufficient on this record. NASA’s motion for summary judgment on these issues was GRANTED.

2018 postdoctoral selection

Mattioda identified NASA’s selection of a postdoctoral candidate other than the candidate he recommended as another discrimination incident. He did not address this event in his opposition to summary judgment. NASA’s motion for summary judgment on this issue was GRANTED.

Disposition

The court’s final order states that NASA’s motion for summary judgment on the 2015 performance-review discrimination claim was DENIED. “In all other respects,” the motion was GRANTED.