Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water

924 F.3d 519 (2019) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 2019-05-17

civil; Section 1981 race discrimination in discharge after reorganization; pre-discovery summary judgment for employer and denial of Rule 56(d) discovery affirmed by CADC (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 1 Persons protected by equal contractual rights satisfied conceded
    Haynes, who is over fifty and black, alleges that younger, white electricians employed by D.C. Water received accommodations, including being given more time to obtain their licenses, not being subjected to the heightened license requirement, or being allowed to return to school for additional training.
  2. 2 Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract satisfied conceded
    Haynes had worked at the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority ("D.C. Water") for nearly thirty years when his position was eliminated as part of a reorganization.
  3. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits satisfied conceded
    Haynes failed to complete the journeyman electrician license exam by the extended deadline of May 31, 2015 and was fired.
  4. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    Prior to March 31, 2015, one black Repairer and the white Repairer completed the exam.
  5. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    Along with Haynes, the remaining two black employees did not complete the licensing exam by March 31, 2015 and were given the additional sixty-day extension.
  6. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    (4) summary judgment on Haynes's Section 1981 claim was appropriate given the record before the district court.
  7. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    Although the framework for evaluating Section 1981 claims resembles that for Title VII claims, discrimination under Section 1981 must be intentional
  8. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    D.C. Water then presented evidence that the only electricians subject to new licensure requirements during the reorganization were Electrical Equipment Repairers like Haynes, and that all the Repairers were treated the same (or worse) than Haynes.
  9. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    D.C. Water presented evidence that utility workers were not electricians subject to the licensure requirements that Haynes alleges were discriminatorily administered.
  10. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    Rather than file a declaration or other materials disputing that evidence, Haynes offered only argument.
  11. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement not no-evidence
    That cannot create a triable issue of fact.