United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019-05-10
42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; Title VII national-origin non-promotion (disparate treatment) and disparate impact; summary judgment for the Secretary of State affirmed on disparate impact, reversed on disparate treatment; denial of plaintiff's cross-motion vacated in part and remanded (CADC); result: mixed; claim: (a), (k)
Uncertainty
Element protected-class: basis: membership was not disputed, but the court went out of its way to say as a matter of law which Title VII category Hispanic ethnicity falls under; [law] would also be defensible
Element adverse-action: basis: conceded only for the purpose of the Secretary's motion; the court remands for the district court to decide the prima facie case in the first instance on Figueroa's cross-motion
Misfit
Pretext and the ultimate because-of question are expressly not reached ("We express no opinion as to whether the District Court correctly analyzed Figueroa's claim at the third prong"); the consequence of the failed burden of production (the unrebutted prima facie presumption, possible summary judgment for the plaintiff on remand) has no slot.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 33
| Case | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) | adverse-action-a2 statutory route or exception | employment-agency-route statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 33
| Case | labor-organization-route statutory route or exception | training-program statutory route or exception | Impermissible motivating factor in mixed-motive cases (§ 2000e-2(m)) | Bona fide occupational qualification (§ 2000e-2(e)(1)) | Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment | Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 33
| Case | Bona fide seniority/merit system or professionally developed ability test (§ 2000e-2(h)) | Failure to reasonably accommodate religious observance or practice (§§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e(j)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | communist-organization statutory route or exception | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | indian-preference statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 33
| Case | Subsection (n) limits challenges to covered litigated or consent judgments or orders | judgment-order-scope statutory route or exception | k2-intentional-limit statutory route or exception | k3-controlled-substance statutory route or exception | labor-organization-causation statutory route or exception | national-security statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 33
| Case | no-preference-imbalance statutory route or exception | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations | religious-institution statutory route or exception | test-score-discrimination statutory route or exception | Rejected "bottom-line" racial or gender balance defense to a discriminatory pass/fail barrier (Connecticut v. Teal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–33 of 33
| Case | Strong-basis-in-evidence defense for race-conscious action taken to avoid disparate-impact liability (Ricci v. DeStefano) | Rejected defense that an adverse CBA arbitration precludes a Title VII action (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver) | Mixed-motive same-decision partial affirmative defense (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a), (k) | foreign-service-grade-advancement | Figueroa first became eligible for promotion to the FS-01 pay grade in 2000, and he applied every year until his retirement in 2009.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [7998:8130] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.He made it to the lower end of the ranked finalist lists in 2004 and 2005, but he again was deemed mid-ranked from 2006 to 2009.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [8224:8352] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Indeed, the government conceded the prima facie case for the purpose of the motion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [45797:45880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943. |
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a), (k) | federal-department-of-state | Until 2009, Richard Figueroa worked as a foreign service officer in the United States Department of State (Department).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [730:849] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943. |
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a), (k) | subjective-promotion-precepts-with-no-explanation-of-how-applied-to-plaintiff | Accordingly, we hold that an employer at the second prong must proffer admissible evidence showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, and reasonably specific explanation for its actions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [38265:38456] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.The Secretary has produced an eight-page chart outlining the Department's core precepts, and Figueroa does not dispute its admissibility.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [21750:21887] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.The Secretary also has provided declarations from board members stating that they followed the precepts in considering Figueroa's file.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [21888:22023] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.All we know is that the board determined Figueroa to be mid-ranked-which at most says he was not deficient in any relevant skill.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [39258:39387] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.But none of the declarants explained what differentiated the best candidates from the rest, nor did they recall anything about why Figueroa's application was middling under the criteria.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [41117:41303] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Because the Secretary has failed to meet his burden of production under the McDonnell Douglas framework, we revive the disparate treatment claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [45524:45669] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943. |
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a), (k) The court expressly does not decide whether the statistical disparity itself was substantial enough ("We need not decide the propriety of the first holding"). | annual-fresh-review-of-promotion-candidates-not-tied-to-disparity | To make a prima facie case, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence "demonstrating a causal connection" between the policy and the disparate impact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [13271:13426] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Among them are statistics from 2006 to 2008 showing that no Hispanic or Latino candidate was promoted to the FS-01 pay grade, even though, during those years, Hispanic and Latino candidates made up 4.0% to 5.8% of the applicant pool and the overall promotion rate was 14.1% to 17.6%.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [12250:12533] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Both point to non-statistical evidence, but none of the cited materials even refers to-let alone establishes a connection with-the challenged refresh policy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [13688:13845] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Because no genuine issue of material fact exists and Figueroa fails to establish causation as a matter of law, the Secretary is entitled to summary judgment on the disparate impact claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [13846:14033] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943. |
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a), (k) | hispanic-puerto-rican | Figueroa is a Hispanic male born in Puerto Rico.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [2856:2904] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Under established law, Title VII covers discrimination based on Hispanic or Latino ethnicitySource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [2905:2997] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Here, Figueroa reasonably invokes national-origin discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [3999:4064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943. |