Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D.D.C.: Secret Service employee, subjected to adverse employment actions after filing complaint, advances claims, (Jun 5, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

He was placed on a PIP after filing a formal EEO complaint concerning alleged discriminatory conduct, which his supervisors determined he had failed to successfully complete.

A former fingerprint specialist at the United States Secret Service sufficiently pled claims that he was discriminated against as a 59-year old, African-American based on his age and race, and then was retaliated against for filing a formal complaint alleging the discrimination, held a federal court in the District of Columbia. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and the ADEA, rejecting its arguments as to temporal proximity and the employee’s proffered comparators. However, the court did grant the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s hostile work environment claims, finding he alleged only common “churn of the workplace” events that did not rise to the level necessary to state such a claim (Regis v. Noem, No. 24-2405 (D.D.C. June 4, 2025)).

“Concerted effort.” The employee alleged that the employer’s conduct against him was part of “a concerted effort to remove older and African American or Black employees from the Forensic Services Division.” He contended that his supervisors: (1) excluded him and other older African-American employees from training opportunities and assignments that would help them develop important skills; and (2) overscrutinized their work.

Complaint, PIP. When the employee and others complained, no actions were taken, so he filed a “formal EEO complaint” alleging discriminatory conduct. “[S]oon after” that filing, he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). His supervisors also falsely contended he was not on track to complete the requisite number of cases for acceptable performance in the PIP, even though his error rate was no different than other fingerprint specialists who were not African-American or over the age of 40 and who had not engaged in protected activity. The supervisors determined he failed to successfully complete the PIP, reprimanded him, and canceled his telework privileges, which they did not do to fingerprint specialists outside his protected classes.

Subsequently, the employee filed suit for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under both Title VII and the ADEA. The employer moved to dismiss all claims.

Race discrimination. The employee pled all elements of his race discrimination claim under Title VII, the court held. He sufficiently pled the requisite adverse employment action with his allegations that: (1) he was excluded from training opportunities and assignments that would assist in his development; and (2) he was given poor performance ratings despite objectively superior performance compared to persons outside his protected classes.

In addition, the employee pled the requisite causal connection by alleging that he was treated less favorably than persons outside of his protected classes, by being placed in a PIP and having his work be more closely scrutinized, even though his level of errors was no different than theirs. These allegations were more specific than the “bald assertions” in the cases the employer cited as support for dismissal.

Age discrimination. As to the age discrimination, the same allegations described above sufficed to plead the adverse employment action element for the employee’s ADEA claim, the court held. Similarly, allegations of his treatment relative to similarly situated employees outside of the employee’s age group, as described above, were enough to infer age discrimination at the pleading stage.

Retaliation. At issue on the retaliation claim was the element requiring a “causal link” between the employee’s protected activity—the EEO complaint—and the adverse employment action he suffered.

According to the employee, “soon after” he filed the EEO complaint, the employer placed him on the PIP, which can qualify as an adverse employment action, and then determined he did not satisfactorily complete it. The “soon after” allegation is enough at the pleading stage to allege causal link via temporal proximity, the court held. The employer argued that specific dates are necessary to establish a causal nexus, but the court cited case law where a pleading passed muster with allegations that the adverse action occurred “soon after” the protected activity.

Hostile work environment. Because the standard for hostile work environment claims is the same under both Title VII and the ADEA, the court addressed the employee’s claims under both statutes together. It held that the employee’s allegations did not meet the threshold of “severe or pervasive” “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” that was so “extreme” as to “amount to a change in the terms and condition of employment.” The employee was relying on his placement on the PIP, the criticisms of his work, the heightened scrutiny he was under, and the canceling of his telework privileges. But PIPs and criticism are “part of the daily churn of a workplace,” scrutiny is a “typical workplace grievance[],” and canceling telework privileges is not “severe or offensive” enough to create a hostile work environment, the court held.

The case is No. 24-2405 (SLS).

Judge: Sooknanan, S.

Attorneys: Eden J. Brown Gaines (Brown Gaines) for Troy Regis. Dedra Seibel Curteman, U.S. Department of Justice, for Kristi Noem.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation DistrictofColumbiaNews