Metivier v. Haaland

Background

Cynthia Metivier worked for the U.S. Department of the Interior for nearly twelve years. Her employment ended on July 22, 2014, after the Department undertook a reorganization and reduction in force amid budget shortfalls. During the relevant period, she worked as a GS-15 Attorney Advisor in the Office of Hearings and Appeals’ White Earth Land Reservation Settlement Act division in Bloomington, Minnesota.

Metivier alleged four categories of claims: sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; retaliation for protected activity under Title VII; a sex-based hostile work environment under Title VII; and retaliation under the Whistleblower Protection Act and Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The Secretary of the Interior moved for summary judgment on every claim. The opinion identifies the defendant as David Bernhardt, who was substituted for former Secretary Ryan K. Zinke because a public officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.

Employment history and challenged actions

Metivier had previously filed an equal-employment-opportunity complaint in 2009 against a different supervisor. That matter settled in June 2011. The settlement converted her from a term employee to a permanent employee with a duty station in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The opinion states that her supervisor, Janet Goodwin, was not involved in the earlier complaint and learned about it only after becoming Metivier’s supervisor’s supervisor.

Goodwin gave Metivier generally high performance ratings from 2010 through 2013, but rated her poorly in personnel management in 2012 after investigating complaints that Metivier had harassed and verbally abused a subordinate, Cheryl Schwartz. Metivier denied the allegations. The lower 2012 rating prevented Metivier from receiving a bonus that year. Goodwin later proposed, and the Department approved, a three-day unpaid suspension based largely on the same circumstances and other alleged workplace conduct.

Metivier later complained about her working conditions, including weekly check-in calls, vacant support positions that were not filled during a hiring freeze, the reassignment of some work to Salt Lake City, the requirement that she train Salt Lake City staff, and Goodwin’s conduct toward her. After a June 2013 telephone conversation, Goodwin proposed a five-day unpaid suspension, which was imposed in September 2013.

The Department then faced budget reductions. Goodwin proposed closing the Bloomington, Portland, and Phoenix offices and eliminating four positions. The reduction-in-force process compared Metivier with Thomas Pfister, another GS-15 Attorney Advisor, using federal criteria including adjusted service dates. The court stated that those criteria required Metivier to be released before Pfister. Other employees affected by the reduction in force were reassigned or otherwise left federal employment. Metivier was separated, and the Merit Systems Protection Board denied her challenges and affirmed the reduction in force.

Preliminary filing issues

Metivier’s opposition brief purported to include a cross-motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment and requests to strike defenses and evidence. The court did not treat those requests as valid motions because they were untimely and did not comply with local procedural rules. The court also held that the government had waived its unpleaded defense that Metivier failed to exhaust her whistleblower claims.

The court declined to consider Metivier’s unauthorized surreply and a separate response to the government’s statement of facts. It found that those filings were not authorized by the local rules and that the separate statement was not sworn or supported in a way that enhanced the court’s understanding of the summary-judgment arguments.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In evaluating the government’s motion, the court accepted Metivier’s evidence and drew reasonable inferences in her favor.

Sex-discrimination claim

Because Metivier identified no direct evidence of sex discrimination, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Under that framework, a plaintiff generally must show that she belongs to a protected group, was qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and experienced circumstances suggesting discrimination. If those showings are made, the employer must identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action; the plaintiff then must show that reason was a pretext for discrimination.

The government did not dispute, for summary-judgment purposes, that Metivier was a woman or that she performed her job adequately. The court treated her termination and two unpaid suspensions as adverse employment actions. It assumed without deciding that several other events might also qualify, including the staffing shortages, 2012 performance review, and investigation of Schwartz’s allegations.

The court found no evidence that most of those actions were related to Metivier’s sex. She identified no discriminatory remarks, gender-based workplace expectations, or similarly situated male employees who received more favorable treatment. The court also found no evidence that her sex influenced the decision not to fill the vacant support positions.

As to the reorganization and reduction in force, the court recognized that the fact that both affected men were reassigned while two affected women were separated could potentially support an inference of discrimination. But it held that the government showed legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the office closures and position selections: major budget problems, a hiring freeze, the need to eliminate four full-time positions, federal reduction-in-force criteria, and determinations that the men’s particular work could not be absorbed elsewhere. Metivier offered no evidence that those reasons were a pretext for sex discrimination. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the sex-discrimination claim.

Hostile-work-environment claim

For a hostile-work-environment claim, Metivier had to show unwelcome harassment connected to her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect a term or condition of employment, along with employer knowledge and inadequate response. The court concluded that the evidence, viewed collectively, concerned office-space decisions, monitoring calls, work reassignment, training duties, the method of assigning cases, and Goodwin’s alleged rudeness or hostility.

The court held that this conduct was not objectively hostile to a reasonable person and that no reasonable jury could find it was related to Metivier’s sex. It granted summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claim.

Retaliation claim

Metivier also claimed that the Department retaliated against her for protected Title VII activity. The court found that her 2009 equal-employment-opportunity complaint was protected activity, but it was too distant in time from the challenged actions to establish causation, and Metivier offered no other evidence connecting that complaint to the actions.

The court considered her February 2013 informal grievance, which included a reference to unequal treatment in the use of professional titles. Even assuming that grievance was protected activity, the court found no indication that the Department understood it as a Title VII complaint. In addition, the 2012 performance review and proposed three-day suspension occurred before that grievance, so they could not have been retaliation for it. The three-day suspension was approved after Metivier contacted equal-employment-opportunity officials, but the court found no evidence that the decision-maker knew of that contact or acted in retaliation.

The court found the later five-day suspension, reorganization, and reduction in force too remote in time to support causation and found no other evidence of retaliation or pretext. It therefore granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Whistleblower claims

Metivier alleged that the Department violated federal whistleblower statutes by retaliating against her for reporting violations of Title VII and related internal policies. The court held that, for federal employment claims based on sex discrimination and related retaliation, Title VII provides the exclusive judicial remedy. Because Metivier’s other Title VII claims could not survive summary judgment, the court also granted summary judgment on the whistleblower claims.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant David Bernhardt’s motion for summary judgment and ordered judgment entered accordingly. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.