Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D.D.C.: Police officer, rehired after spending years in Canada, advances age bias claim, (Apr 23, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although the comments about his age were not found to be severe, the daily harassment was ongoing, making them pervasive enough to support a hostile work environment claim.

A Metropolitan Police Officer’s claim for a hostile work environment in violation of the ADEA survived a motion for summary judgment in a ruling by a federal court in the District of Columbia. The officer worked for the department from 1990 until 2006, when he voluntarily resigned and moved to Canada, eventually obtaining Canadian citizenship. Upon his return to the states, he was rehired as a police officer, and suffered comments related to his status as a Canadian citizen and his age. His Title VII claims for national origin discrimination fell short, as there was no evidence the job vacancies he applied for were rescinded for discriminatory reasons, and comments about his Canadian citizenship were too isolated to support a hostile work environment claim (McArdle v. District of Columbia, No. 19-cv-3637 (JMC) (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2025)).

The officer was hired by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in 1990 and worked as a motorcycle trainer within the Special Operation Division (SOD) until he voluntarily resigned in 2006. He then moved to Canada, working for a Canadian police department from 2007 until 2013, eventually obtaining Canadian citizenship.

Return, rehired. In 2013, the officer returned to the United States and reapplied to the MPD. In June 2014, he was rehired as an entry-level officer. Although there was some dispute as to whether the officer would be reinstated to his former position, he was told in August that this would not happen. Further, when the officer learned of this development, an HR representative allegedly told him that he “would probably not make it through training and would only get injured because he was ‘old.’”

Police academy. When the officer began training at the police academy on August 28, 2014, he alleged that he was subjected to regular insults and taunts about his age, including “old” and “old man.”

Comments continue. This name calling continued after the officer graduated from the academy in April 2015. He also alleged that disparaging comments were made about his status as a Canadian citizen. He reported the harassment to a supervising lieutenant, who warned staff to no longer “make jokes about Canadians,” but did not address the age-related comments. According to the officer, the comments about his age persist to this day.

Vacancies. It was the officer’s desire to return to SOD as a motorcycle officer. In July 2015, the MPD posted a vacancy announcement for eight motorcycle officer positions. The officer applied that month, but the MPD withdrew the vacancy announcement in February 2016. In March 2016, the MPD again posted a vacancy announcement for eight positions and the officer again applied. The vacancies were again withdrawn the following month.

According to the officer, it was his belief that a supervisor in the SOD “had something to do” with the withdrawal of the vacancies. The officer asserted that when he called the supervisor in 2016 to discuss a possible transfer, the supervisor laughed and told him: “[y]ou’re a Canadian. You don’t understand,” and “things have changed, you’re older now, what’s a Canadian have to offer?”

Lawsuit. On July 11, 2016, the officer filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. He then filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VII and discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the ADEA. The District of Columbia moved for summary judgment against the claims.

Failure to reinstate. First, the court addressed the officer’s claim that the MPD failed to reinstate him at his previous paygrade because of his age and national origin. The court found that this claim was time-barred, as the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred more than 300 days before the filing of the claim, and was a discrete act, rather than a continuing violation.

Transfer denials? Next, the officer alleged that he experienced national origin and age discrimination when the MPD refused to transfer him to SOD. The District argued that the officer had failed to make out even a prima facie case because he was not denied a transfer to SOD—rather the vacancies he had applied for were withdrawn and no one was hired to fill those positions.

Direct evidence. The officer contended that a SOD supervisor made disparaging comments to him about his age and national origin, and those comments constituted direct evidence of discriminatory intent that should preclude a motion for summary judgment. The court was unmoved.

Although the alleged comments made by the supervisor were “facially discriminatory and wholly inappropriate,” the court found they were immaterial to the officer’s case as there was no connection between the comments and the transfer applications. The supervisor had no authority to rescind the vacancies and the officer admitted that he had no evidence the supervisor had anything to do with the decision to rescind the openings.

Indirect evidence. As to any indirect evidence of discrimination, the District argued the officer had failed to establish a prima facie case because he was not subjected to any adverse employment action. The court noted that the decision to withdraw the vacancies could, in some circumstances, constitute an adverse action. However, in this instance the officer failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the MPD failed to transfer him based on a protected characteristic.

Although the officer contended that the repeated references to his age could lead a reasonable jury to infer bias, he failed to point to any evidence that any of his colleagues who made the comments played a decision-making role when it came to the vacancies. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted as to these claims.

Hostile work environment. Turning to the officer’s Title VII and ADEA hostile work environment claims, the court determined that any comments made about the officer’s Canadian citizenship were too isolated to establish the severity or pervasiveness necessary to sustain a hostile work environment claim.

“A handful of comments over the course of three years by different individuals is not pervasive,” said the court. Further, general testimony that someone was “taunted,” absent any information about the content or frequency of such statements, is not enough to send such a claim to a jury, explained the court.

The court reached a different result with regard to the ADEA hostile work environment claim. Here, the court found the comments were ongoing and thus were not time-barred. As to severity, the court determined that none of the comments the officer identified as ageist were severe. However, the pervasiveness of the comments was another story.

According to the officer, the comments about his age persist to this day. As such, the court could not agree with the District that the comments were too “generic and sporadic” to give rise to a claim. Accordingly, summary judgment was denied as to this claim.

The case is No. 19-cv-3637 (JMC).

Judge: Cobb, J.

Attorneys: Avni J. Amin (Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch) for John McArdle. Benjamin Egan Bryant, Office of the Attorney General, for District of Columbia.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination NationalOrigin PublicEmployees DistrictofColumbiaNews GCNNews