Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05410/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 24, 1999 Decided October 29, 1999

No. 98-5410

Kuross Samii,

Appellant

v.

James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(97cv01794)

David H. Shapiro argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellant. Diane Bodner entered an appearance.

Diane M. Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the

cause for appellee. With her on the brief were Wilma A.

Lewis, U.S. Attorney, Mark E. Nagle and R. Craig Lawrence,

Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

USCA Case #98-5410 Document #473393 Filed: 10/29/1999 Page 1 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Ginsburg and Randolph, Circuit Judges, and

Buckley, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: Dr. Kuross Samii, an employee

of the Library of Congress who classifies himself as an "Asian

American," appeals from the district court's order on summary judgment rejecting his Title VII claims of retaliation

and racial discrimination.

The facts are these. In September 1994, after working

three years at the Library as a GS-13 research associate, Dr.

Samii applied and was selected for a GS-14 position as a

program analysis officer within the Library's Office of the

Associate Librarian for Human Resource Services ("HRS"),

Affirmative Action and Special Programs Office ("AASPO").

The program analysis officer position is a "budgeted" and

"funded" position, meaning Dr. Samii's salary is paid from the

portion of the Library's budget specifically allocated for Human Resource Services.

Shortly after starting at the AASPO, Dr. Samii was asked

to conduct a study to generate suggestions for improving the

effectiveness of the AASPO program. Dr. Samii's study

concluded that an internal reorganization would enhance the

program's effectiveness. Under a proposed reorganization,

Dr. Samii would have received a promotion to the next higher

grade level by accretion of duties. The plan was presented to

upper management at the Library, who opposed it, as a result

of which it was never implemented.

Frustrated by the failed reorganization, Dr. Samii began to

explore the possibility of transferring out of AASPO. In late

1995, he wrote to Lloyd Pauls, the Associate Librarian for

Human Resources, indicating his desire to transfer to another

part of the Library. Mr. Pauls informed Dr. Samii that he

was free to transfer to another department so long as he

could find an open funded position. According to Library

policy, HRS employees could not transfer budgeted salary

funds to other divisions of the Library. Employees were

permitted to transfer from HRS to other areas of the Library

USCA Case #98-5410 Document #473393 Filed: 10/29/1999 Page 2 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

only if they found open positions in other divisions with

budgeted funds. In a memo responding to Dr. Samii's request, Mr. Pauls explained that he would approve a transfer

to another service unit but not permit the reassignment of

Dr. Samii's budget number and salary.

Though still intent on transferring out of the AASPO, Dr.

Samii continued in his position as a program analysis officer.

While performing his duties, he concluded that the Library

was not fully complying with the terms of the "Cook settlement"--an agreement settling a lawsuit that alleged discrimination by the Library against its black employees. See Cook

v. Billington, No. Civ. 82-0400, 1992 WL 276936 (D.D.C. Aug.

14, 1992). In May 1995, Dr. Samii notified his supervisor,

Denise Banks, that certain reviews required by the settlement, ensuring nondiscrimination in the Library's hiring process, were not being conducted. Ms. Banks passed along this

information to her supervisor, Lloyd Pauls. Concerned that

the violations had not abated, Dr. Samii conferred with his

former supervisor, who encouraged him to report the Library's non-compliance with the settlement agreement. On

March 7, 1996, Dr. Samii wrote a memorandum to John

Rensbarger, the Inspector General of the Library, informing

him that the reviews required under the Cook settlement

agreement were not being performed. Rensbarger allegedly

discussed the matter with the Library's Senior Advisor for

Diversity, Jo Ann Jenkins. Dr. Samii claims that Ms. Jenkins spoke with his immediate supervisor, Ms. Banks, and

told her to do something about the "troublemakers" on her

staff, referring to Dr. Samii's whistle-blowing activity.

Ms. Banks, however, was soon replaced by Carl Whisenton,

who became the new Director of the AASPO. Dr. Samii

contends that Mr. Whisenton stopped the reorganization of

the AASPO, and thereby blocked his promotion. He also

claims that Mr. Whisenton removed him from certain management decisions and lessened his duties, and that the

combination of these made him vulnerable to an eventual

lowering of his grade level.

USCA Case #98-5410 Document #473393 Filed: 10/29/1999 Page 3 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

After these events, Dr. Samii renewed his request to

transfer to another division of the Library. In July 1996, he

wrote to the Acting Deputy Librarian, Thomas Carney, asking to be transferred to the Library's Office of Scholarly

Programs. After consulting with Lloyd Pauls, Mr. Carney

responded that Dr. Samii could transfer only if the Office of

Scholarly Programs provided a budget number and funding

for the position. Dr. Samii then wrote to Donald Scott, the

Deputy Librarian, making the same request to transfer. Ms.

Jenkins, at the direction of Mr. Scott, replied to Dr. Samii's

request, advising him not to direct any further correspondence to top management at the Library unless cleared by his

immediate superiors.

In November 1996, Dr. Samii filed an Allegation of Discrimination with the Library's Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Office ("EEOC Office"). He listed Ms. Jenkins

as the discriminating official and alleged discrimination on the

basis of race, sex and national origin. Among other things,

Dr. Samii claimed that Ms. Jenkins discriminated against him

by treating his request for transfer differently from the

requests of other employees who had transferred out of

Human Resources. His Allegation of Discrimination did not

specify a claim for retaliation nor did it identify any Title VII

related protected conduct. In December 1996, Dr. Samii met

with Welton Belsches, the EEO counselor assigned to his

case. Though Dr. Samii contends that in this interview and

in a subsequent one, he discussed retaliatory actions taken

against him by Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Belsches maintains that he

did not.

On February 14, 1997, Dr. Samii filed a Complaint of

Discrimination with the EEOC Office alleging retaliation in

addition to discrimination. Since the retaliation claim was not

"brought to the attention" of the EEO counselor as required

by Library regulations, Dr. Samii was notified that it would

not be accepted for processing. See Library of Congress

Regulation 2010-3.1, s 6(B)(2). On May 13, 1997, in its Final

Agency Decision, the EEOC Office rejected Dr. Samii's appeal of its decision refusing to process his retaliation allegation.

USCA Case #98-5410 Document #473393 Filed: 10/29/1999 Page 4 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Dr. Samii filed this action, invoking Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e et seq.,

shortly thereafter. The district court granted summary judgment for the Librarian, finding that Dr. Samii had failed to

establish a prima facie case for retaliation or discrimination.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm, but on a different

ground.

The parties agree that under McDonnell Douglas, to assert

a successful Title VII claim, an employee must establish that

the employer's asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for its

adverse conduct were pretextual. See McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804 (1973); Mungin v. Katten

Muchin & Zavis, 116 F.3d 1549, 1553-54 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Once an employer articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for the challenged employment decision, the employer

prevails unless the employee succeeds in discrediting the

employer's explanation. See Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr.,

156 F.3d 1284, 1288-89 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Since the

ultimate burden of persuasion in proving retaliation remains

with the plaintiff, summary judgment is appropriate when the

employee is unable to satisfy this burden. See Texas Dep't of

Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981);

Paquin v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 119 F.3d 23, 27-28

(D.C. Cir. 1997); Chen v. General Accounting Office, 821 F.2d

732, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

The Librarian has provided legitimate nondiscriminatory

reasons for not transferring Dr. Samii pursuant to his repeated requests. The denials of his requests were predicated

on the Library policy applicable to all HRS employees. Employees transferring to other divisions were not permitted to

take their budgeted salaries with them since doing so would

result in the department losing the funds allocated to those

specific positions.

Dr. Samii never made a request to transfer to an open,

funded position in another division of the Library. Rather,

he desired that he be excepted from the general policy and be

allowed to take his HRS salary with him to a new position.

This, the Librarian points out, was not possible since the

USCA Case #98-5410 Document #473393 Filed: 10/29/1999 Page 5 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

program analysis officer position is critical to the AASPO and

HRS would have no funds to pay for his replacement's salary.

According to Lloyd Pauls, three HRS employees transferred

to other Library divisions during the time Dr. Samii made his

requests. Each of these employees found budgeted and

funded positions in the divisions to which they transferred.

Dr. Samii failed to discredit the existence of the Library's

stated transfer policy. He offered no examples of HRS

employees who were permitted to reassign their salaries to

positions elsewhere in the Library. If funding was the real

reason for denying his transfer, Dr. Samii contends that the

Library should have granted his request to be detailed to the

Office of Scholarly Programs, an action that would not have

necessitated funding from the granting service. Doing so,

however, would have left the AASPO with no one to perform

the program analysis officer's duties and no funding to hire a

replacement. Dr. Samii thus failed to present evidence that

would lead a reasonable fact finder to disbelieve the Library's

proffered reasons for denying his transfer requests. We

therefore conclude that Dr. Samii has not met his burden, and

that the district court properly granted the Library's motion

for summary judgment on the retaliation claim. See Paquin,

119 F.3d at 27-28.

Dr. Samii also believes that he was discriminated against

by the Library's failure to process his claim for retaliation

even though it accepted the retaliation claim filed by a black

employee under allegedly identical circumstances. The Library maintains that the retaliation claim was not processed

because Dr. Samii failed to bring it to the attention of the

EEO counselor in accordance with Library regulations. See

Library of Congress Regulation 2010-3.1, s 6(B)(2). The

district court nevertheless reviewed the claim1 and, in a ruling

we now affirm, found that Dr. Samii failed to establish

retaliation. Any harm resulting from the Library's refusal to

__________

1 The district court reviewed the claim despite determining that

Dr. Samii failed to exhaust his administrative remedy. We do not

address the exhaustion question in view of the Librarian's failure to

preserve it.

USCA Case #98-5410 Document #473393 Filed: 10/29/1999 Page 6 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

entertain the retaliation claim has thus been cured. See

Bowden v. United States, 176 F.3d 552, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

Since the discrimination claim is derivative of Dr. Samii's

meritless retaliation claim, it too must fail.

Affirmed.

USCA Case #98-5410 Document #473393 Filed: 10/29/1999 Page 7 of 7