UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES H. BOLDEN, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 08-1012 (RMU) : v. : Re Document No.: 94 : HILLARY CLINTON, in her official : capacity as United States Secretary : of State, : : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM OPINION G RANTING THE D EFENDANT ’ S M OTION FOR S UMMARY J UDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, a former employee of the Depa rtment of State, alle ges that he was the victim of unlawful discriminati on and retaliation on the basis of hi s race and age. He brings suit under Title VII of the Civil Righ ts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. , against Hillary Clinton in her official capacity as the Secretary of State. This matter now comes before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary j udgment. The defendant argues th at its employment decisions were uniformly motivated by legitimate, non-di scriminatory reasons. Because the court concludes that no reasonab le juror could conclude that thes e reasons were simply pretext for unlawful discrimination, the court grants the defendant’s motion.

II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The plaintiff is a former member of the Fo reign Service, the diplomatic corps of the United States. Def.’s Stmt. of Material Facts ¶ 1. As a member of the Foreign Service, the2 plaintiff was employed by the defendant, the Department of State. Id. The plaintiff is an African-American who was born in 1953. Id. The plaintiff began his employment with the defendant in 1986 with an assignment to the Foreign Service’s Dallas Regional Office. Id. From 1990 to 1992, the pl aintiff was assigned to the United States Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico. Id. ¶ 4. From 1992 to 2004, the plaintiff served in various positions in different ge ographical areas within the United States. Id. When making decisions regarding which employ ees to promote, the Department of State convokes a Foreign Service Selection Board (“Promotion Board”). Id. ¶¶ 6-7. These Promotion Boards are composed of a group of indivi duals who rank the employees according to performance reviews, capability, and other metric s. Def.’s Mot. at 19-20. The information reviewed by the Promotion Boards did not c ontain any information with respect to any employee’s age, race, color, relig ion, sexual orientation, national origin, disability or prior activity with the Equal Employment O pportunity Commission (“EEO activity”). Id. at 22, see also id. Ex. 13-16, 18-32. The plaintiff applied for a promotion in 2004 and 2005. Def.’s Stmt. of Material Facts ¶¶ 6-7. The 2004 Promotion Board considered 137 applicants; the Board recommended 56 individuals for promotion, three of whom were African-American and tw o of whom were over age 40. Id. The 2005 Promotion Board considered 169 applicants; the Board recommended two African-Americans for promotion and 29 employees ag ed 40 or over. Def.’s Stmt. of Facts ¶ 6; Def.’s Mot., Ex. 108. Neither the 2004 Pr omotion Board nor the 2005 Promotion Board recommended the plaintiff for promoti on. Def.’s Stmt. of Facts ¶¶ 6-7. In 2007, the plaintiff applied for a number of vacancies that had been announced for a position as Criminal Investigator. Id. ¶¶ 8-10. The first vacancy announcement pertained to3 three geographical vacancies (Dallas, Denver, and Los Angeles). Id. ¶ 8. The second vacancy announcement similarly advertised v acancies in several locations. Id. ¶ 9. The third vacancy announcement related to an avai lable position in Virginia. Id. ¶ 10. When selecting the candidate to be hired to fill these vacancies, the defendant convoked various panels of individuals to review the applicants. Def.’s Mo t. at 8. These panels reviewed the applicants in terms of their relevant qualifications. Id. The individuals who served on these panels did not have access to information regard ing the applicant’s race , age or EEO activity. Id. ; see id. ; Ex. 44, 46. The panels reviewed the applic ations and ranked the applicants in light of their qualifications, but the panels did not con duct interviews. Def.’s Mot. at 8. Each panel then issued a recommendation for the individual th at they collectively believed to be the most qualified. Id. at 9. The plaintiff was not sel ected for any of these positions. Id. By 2007, the plaintiff was nearing completion of his job assignment in New Orleans. Def.’s Stmt. of Facts ¶ 11. Following the comp letion of this assignment, the plaintiff faced mandatory retirement. Id. According to the defendant’s inte rnal regulations, no individual may serve more than 15 years at the ra nk that the plaintiff had held. Id. Because the plaintiff had held the same rank for 15 years, the plaintiff was schedul ed to be mandatorily retired at the end of September 2007. Id. Employees facing mandatory retirement may choos e to file a grievance. Def.’s Mot., Ex. 57. The plaintiff did so approximately one mont h before his mandatory retirement was set to take effect. Id. , Ex. 74. The defendant’s internal regul ations stipulate th at an employee who files a grievance while facing mandatory retirement is normally granted some form of interim relief. Id. , Ex. 57. Interim relief does not restore the employee to his or he r previous status;4 rather, it puts the employee in a status where no fu rther actions can be taken to force retirement. Id. Thus, if an employee who faces mandatory re tirement files a grievance, the mandatory retirement is held in abeyance. Id. In addition, the employee is authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. for three days in order to consult with his or her employers. Id. The plaintiff opted to trav el to Washington, D.C. Id. At this point, the defendant admits that it erred in the plaintiff’s fa vor by deviating from its standard procedures. Instead of granting the plaintiff permission to vis it Washington D.C. for three days, the plaintiff was formally assigned to Washington, D.C., for an indefinite period. Def.’s Mot. at 12. In connection with his indefinite assignment to Washington, D.C. duri ng the pendency of his grievance, the plaintiff was provided with travel author ization and allowances in th e amount of $28,547.53 to complete
his direct transfer from New Orl eans, Louisiana, to Washington, D.C. 1 Id. , Ex. 79. To ensure that the plaintiff had meaningf ul work during his time in Wash ington, D.C., the plaintiff was asked to assist with a staffing shortage in the Criminal Investigations Division. Id. , Ex. 93. The plaintiff settled his grievance with the defendant in January 2008, and as a result, the defendant granted the plaintiff two additional ye ars in which he could apply for a promotion, thereby forestalling his mandatory retirement date. Def.’s Stmt. of Material Facts ¶ 28; Def.’s Mot., Ex. 17. In 2008, the plaintiff was assigne d to Monterrey, Mexico. Def.’s Stmt. of Material Facts ¶ 28. In anticipation of the assi gnment to Monterrey, the plaintiff was asked to report to training in Washington, D.C. Def.’s Mot. at 12-13. During this time, the plaintiff used

1 These allowances included: (1) travel costs and per diem for a ten-day househunting trip for the plaintiff and his wife; (2) transfer travel costs fo r travel to Washington, D. C.; (3) per diem for the plaintiff, his wife and his daughter; (4) ship ment of baggage and household effects to Washington, D.C.; (5) temporary storage costs; (6) over $13,000 for sixty days’ temporary quarters subsistence allowance, and (7) $1,000 fo r miscellaneous expenses. Def.’s Mot. at 12.5 his government credit card for several charges as sociated with his temporary lodging there. Id. , Ex. 89, 91. The plaintiff did not time ly pay the credit card balances. Id . As a result, the plaintiff was suspended for 5 days without pay. Id. In 2008 and 2009, the plaintiff once again app lied for a promotion, but the Promotion Boards did not select the plain tiff. Def.’s Mot. at 13-14. By September 2010, the plaintiff had not been promoted during the two-year grace peri od created by the settlemen t of his grievance. Def.’s Stmt. of Facts ¶ 34; Def.’s Mot., Ex. 10. Accordingly, the plaintiff was mandatorily retired. Id. The plaintiff filed suit in June 2008, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act. 2 See generally Compl. Following discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. See generally Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”). With this motion ripe for adjudication, the court now turns to the relevant legal standards and th e parties’ arguments.

2 Although the complaint alleges that the plaintiff was the victim of discrimination on the basis of age, the plaintiff’s complaint cites only to Title VII. See generally 4th Am. Compl. This appears to be an error, as Title VII does not provid e a cause of action for age discrimination. Kremer v. Chem. Const. Corp. , 456 U.S. 461, 466 n.4 (1982). This is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim, however. Under the generous standard for notice pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the court may not dismiss a claim simply because th e complaint fails to cite the correct statute. Rahman v. Johanns , 501 F. Supp. 2d 8, 17 (D.D.C. 2007). Accordingly, the court will construe the plaintiff’s factual allegations of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.6 III. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and evidence show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any materi al fact and the movant is enti tled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood , 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). To determine which facts are “material,” a court must look to the subs tantive law on which each claim rests. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A “genuine dispute” is one whose resolution could establish an element of a claim or defense and, therefore, affect the outcome of the action. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322; Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment , the court must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor and ac cept the nonmoving party’s evidence as true. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 255. A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evid ence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show that the nonmoving party “fail[ed] to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322. By pointing to the absence of evidence proffered by the nonm oving party, a moving party may succeed on summary judgment. Id. The nonmoving party may defeat summary judgment through fact ual representations made in a sworn affidavit if he “support[s] hi s allegations . . . with facts in the record,” Greene v. Dalton , 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting Harding v. Gray , 9 F.3d 150, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1993)), or provides “direc t testimonial evidence,” Arrington v. United States , 473 F.3d 329, 3387 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Indeed, for the court to accept anything less “would defeat the central purpose of the summary judgment device, which is to weed out those cases insufficiently meritorious to warrant the expense of a jury trial.” Greene , 164 F.3d at 675.

B. The Court Grants the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Plaintiff’s Claims of Race and Age Discrimination 1. Legal Standard for Race and Age DiscriminationWhen the defendant in a Title VII or ADEA case presents a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, 3 the district court need resolve only one question to adjudicate a motion for summary judgment: “Has the employee produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s asserted non-disc riminatory reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentionall y discriminated against the employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?” Brady v. Office of th e Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives , 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Th e court must consider whether the jury could infer discriminati on from (1) the plaintiff’s prima facie case, (2) any evidence the plaintiff presents to attack the employer’s prof fered explanation, and (3) any further evidence of discrimination that may be av ailable to the plaintiff. Waterhouse v. District of Columbia , 298 F.3d 989, 992-93 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr. , 156 F.3d 1284, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). The plaintiff need not present ev idence in each of these categories to avoid

3 In those rare cases in which the defendant fails to present a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, the court must follow a three-part burden-shifting analysis known as the McDonnell Douglas framework. Lathram v. Snow , 336 F.3d 1085, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (noting that once the defendant presents a legitimate non-discriminatory reason “the McDonnell Douglas framework . . . disappears, and the sole remaining issue is discrimination vel non ”) (citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973)); see also Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives , 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the prima facie case is a largely unnecessary sideshow”).8 summary judgment. Aka , 156 F.3d at 1289. Rather, the cour t should assess the plaintiff’s challenge to the employer’s explanation in lig ht of the total circumstances of the case. Id. at 1291.

2. The Plaintiff’s No n-Promotion Claims The plaintiff claims that he was discrimina ted against on the basis of race and age when he was passed over for promotion in 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2009. See 4th Am. Compl. ¶¶ 63, 66. The defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on these claims because the defendant’s employment decisions were motivat ed by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Def.’s Mot. at 32. More specifically, the defenda nt argues that the candidates who were selected for promotion had qualifications that we re superior to the plaintiff’s. Id. In contrast, the plaintiff maintains that he was wrongfully denied promotion despite his “outstanding merit.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 6. In addi tion, the plaintiff attempts to introduce statistical evidence that tends to show that no African-American indivi duals with a history of EEO complaints were selected for promotion. Id. The plaintiff thus asks the court to infer that the defendant’s stated reason for acting is mere ly a pretext for invidious discrimination. Because the defendant has presented a legi timate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, Def.’s Mot. at 32, the plaintiff bears the burden of submitting evidence that could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that the defenda nt’s stated motive is merely a pretext for discrimination, see Brady , 520 F.3d at 494. Statistics may be used in Title VII cases to illustrate a history of discrimination or to show that the defendant’s professed reasons for acting are merely a subterfuge. Cook v. Boorstin , 763 F.2d 1462, 1468 (D.C. Cir. 1985). It is insufficient to merely show that one protected group forms a small percentage of the employer’s workforce,9 however; the plaintiff must compare the number of minorities hired with the number of minoritiy applicants that were qua lified for the position. See Metrocare v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. , 679 F.2d 922, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1982); see also Anderson v. Group Hospitalization, Inc. , 820 F.2d 465, 469 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (concluding that “no in ference of unlawful racial animus can be drawn from a statistical comparison that fail s to account for relevant job qualifications”). The plaintiff here has merely presented genera l facts that describe the composition of the State Department’s workforce. Pl.’s Opp’n at 6. The plaintiff has not paired these facts with relevant comparisons of the applicants’ relative qualifications. See id. It is well-settled that mere description of the composition of a workfo rce, without more, does not support an inference of discrimination. See Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio , 490 U.S. 642, 650 (1989); Koger
v. Reno , 98 F.3d 631, 639 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Whitener v. England , 2006 WL 3755220, at *7 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2006). Because statistics that “indicate nothing more than an underrepresentation [of a protected class]” cannot alone create a tria ble issue of fact, Horvath v. Thompson , 329 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2003), the plainti ff’s evidence is insufficient to avoid summary judgment. In addition, the plaintiff has not proffered any evidence to suggest that these putative disparities are statistically significant. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 6. The plai ntiff’s failure to establish the statistical significance of his ev idence fatally undermines his claim. See Whitener , 2006 WL 3755220, at *7. Accordingly, the cour t grants the defendant’s mo tion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s non-promotion claims.10 3. The Plaintiff’s Non-Selection Claims The plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of discrimination on the basis of race and age when he was not selected for various positions as a Criminal Investigator. 4th Am. Compl. ¶¶ 63, 66. The defendant argues that its acts were motivated by a legitimat e, non-discriminatory reason. Def.’s Mot. at 38. In essence, the defe ndant argues that the defendant simply chose the most qualified candidates for the position. Id. The plaintiff counters th at he had “far superior credentials and experience” than those individuals who were sele cted. Pl.’s Opp’n at 13. The plaintiff thus concludes that th is discrepancy can only be explai ned by discriminatory animus. See id. Because the defendant has presented a legi timate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, Def.’s Mot. at 38, the plaintiff bears th e burden of proving that this reason is merely pretext, Brady , 520 F.3d at 494; Holcomb v. Powell , 433 F.3d 889, 897 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A plaintiff may demonstrate evidence of pret ext by showing a gap between the relative qualifications of the plaintiff and the indi vidual who was selected for promotion. Adeyemi v. District of Columbia , 525 F.3d 1222, 1227 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Th is evidence is only probative, however, if the gap is so “wide a nd inexplicable” that it inherently gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Id. In reviewing the plaintiff’s allegations , the court is mindful that Title VII is not a statutory invitation for the judiciar y to micromanage all personnel decisions. See Barbour
v. Browner , 181 F.3d 1342, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (concludi ng that Title VII does not permit a court to act as a “super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions”); Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr. , 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“Title VII liability cannot rest solely upon a judge’s determinati on that an employer misjudged the relative qualifications of admittedly qualified candidates.”) . Rather, employers must be given the leeway11 to make employment decisions as they see fit. Holcomb v. Powell , 433 F.3d at 897 (noting that a reasonable juror will usually assume that an em ployer is better able to make judgment calls regarding the qualifications of their employees). Here, the plaintiff compares his qualifications to each of the indivi duals who were hired for the Criminal Investigator positions and each time reaches the conclusion that his qualifications were superior. Pl.’s Opp’n at 13- 14. For example, the plaintiff argues that the candidate who was selected for the first Crimin al Investigator position had fewer single overseas assignments than the plaintiff. Id. at 13. The defendant replie s that the individual who was selected had relevant experience, specialize d, area-specific knowledge and Spanish-language fluency. See Def.’s Mot. at 42. Similarly, the plaintiff claims that the indivi dual who was chosen for the second Criminal Investigator position held a lower civil service rank at the time of his selection. Pl.’s Opp’n at 14. The defendant replies that the selectee ha d location-specific expe rience and significant supervisory duties which the plaintif f lacked. Def.’s Mot. at 41. The plaintiff summarily assert s that his qualifications we re “far superior” to the individual who was selected for the third Crimin al Investigator positi on without describing the differences between the two. Pl.’s Opp’n at 13. The defendant maintains that the individual selected for this post had 12 years of professional experience as a criminal investigator with the Army Reserve, whereas the plainti ff lacked relevant experience as a criminal investigator. Def.’s
Mot. at 42. When comparing the relative qualifications of the plaintiff and the individual who was selected for promotion, the disparity in qualifications must be so aber rant that it gi ves rise to an inference of invidious discrimination. Holcomb , 433 F.3d at 897. If the ev idence reveals that the12 plaintiff was merely one of seve ral qualified candidates, summary judgment for the defendant is warranted. Jackson v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 703, 707-08 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (affirming grant of summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff and the selectee were both qualified for the promotion and there was no evidence th at the plaintiff was a “discernibly better” candidate than the selectee); Smith v. Napolitano , 626 F. Supp. 2d 81, 93 (D.D.C. 2009) (same). Even when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence before the court demonstrates at best that the plaintiff was only one of many qualified applicants who applied for the job. See Pl.’s Mot. at 13-14. In each of the circ umstances, the defendant has demonstrated that those individuals who were se lected had qualifications that were comparab le or superior to the plaintiff’s. See Def.’s Mot. at 41-42. In addition, th e plaintiff submits no additional evidence from which the court could in fer that the defendant’s statements are a mere cover for discrimination. The court therefor e concludes that the plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to call into doubt the defendant’s legitimate, non-discri minatory reason for acting. Accordingly, the court grants the defendants’ motion for su mmary judgment on the plaintiff’s criminal investigator non-promotion claims.

4. The Plaintiff’s Reassignment Claims The plaintiff claims that his transfer to the employer’s New Orleans and Washington, D.C. offices was motivated by discrimination on th e basis of race and age. 4th Am. Compl. ¶¶ 63, 66. The defendant argues that its employment decisions were motivated by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons; namely, the defendant’s st affing needs. Def.’s Mot. at 51. The plaintiff counters that he was dissatisfied with his job assignments in Wash ington, D.C. and New Orleans.13 Pl.’s Opp’n at 16. The plain tiff does not submit any evidence of a connection between the defendant’s acts and the plainti ff’s race or age, however. Id. Because the defendant has presented a legi timate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, the plaintiff bears the burden of produci ng evidence for a reasonab le juror to find that this reason is merely a pretext that is unworthy of credence. See Brady , 520 F.3d at 494. The plaintiff has not put forth any arguments, much le ss any evidence, to suggest that the defendant’s stated reasons are anything but true . The plaintiff instead argues th at he was dissatisfied with his job duties while working in Washington, D.C. Pl .’s Opp’n at 16. Job sa tisfaction aside, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that di scrimination was a factor behind the defendant’s

acts. See Brady , 520 F.3d at 494. Because the plaintiff ha s submitted no evidence to that effect, the court grants the defendant summary judgment on this claim.

5. The Plaintiff’s Suspension Claim The plaintiff claims he was suspended for five days without pay because of the defendant’s discriminatory practices. 4th Am. Co mpl. ¶¶ 63, 66. The defendant argues that the defendant’s decision to suspend th e plaintiff was based on the plai ntiff’s misuse of governmentissued credit cards. Def.’s Mot. at 52. The de fendant maintains that an employer is entitled to sanction an employee for mishand ling financial instruments. Id. The plaintiff counters that he was required to use the government-issued credit cards for lodging charges associated with his temporary detail to Washington, D.C. Pl.’s Opp’ n at 5. The plaintiff does not explain, however, why he failed to pay the b ills in a timely manner. See id. The misuse of government-issued credit card s is widely accepted to be a legitimate reason to impose disciplinary action. See Rountree v. Johanns , 382 F. Supp. 2d 19, 26-2714 (D.D.C. 2005); Anderson v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp ., 360 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2003). Here, the plaintiff claims that he used the governme nt-issued credit cards to pay for certain costs associated with his move to Washington, D.C. foll owing his transfer there. Pl.’s Opp’n at 19. The plaintiff alleges that he was entitl ed to reimbursement for these costs. Id. Whether or not reimbursement was warranted, it is undisputed that the plaintiff was delinquent in paying his credit card bills. See Def.’s Mot. at 53; id. , Ex. 75. The defendant has submitted evidence to show that disciplinary action fo r delinquent payments is routine. Def.’s Mot. at 53. More importantly, the plaintiff cites no evidence to support any causal connection between the defendant’s acts and the pl aintiff’s race or age. See id. Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiff has not met his burden to show that ra ce or age played a dete rmining factor in the defendant’s decision to suspend him. Cuddy v. Carmen , 694 F.2d 853, 856-57 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

C. The Court Grants the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Retaliation Claims 1. Legal Standard for a Retaliation Claim To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activit y, (2) a reasonable employee w ould have found the challenged action materially adverse, 4 and (3) there existed a causal connection between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White , 548 U.S.

4 In the retaliation context, the term “adverse action” “encompass[es] a broader sweep of actions than those in a pure discrimination claim.” Baloch v. Kempthorne , 550 F.3d 1191, 1198 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, “[r]etaliation claims are ‘not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment’ and may exte nd to harms that are not workplace-related or employment-related so long as ‘a reasonable em ployee would have found the challenged action materially adverse.’” Id. (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White , 548 U.S. 53, 64, 68 (2006)).15 53, 67-69 (2006); Jones v. Bernanke , 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2009) . The plaintiff’s burden is not great: he “need onl y establish facts adequate to permit an inference of retaliatory motive.” Forman v. Small , 271 F.3d 285, 299 (D.C. Cir. 2001). If the employer successfully presents a le gitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its actions, “the presumption raised by the prima faci e is rebutted and drops from the case.” St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 507 (1993) (i nternal citation omitted); Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives , 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (noting that “the prima facie case is a largely unnece ssary sideshow”). Upon such a showing by the defendant, the district court need resolve onl y one question: “Has the employee produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s asserted non-[retaliatory] reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentiona lly [retaliated] against the employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?” Brady , 520 F.3d at 494. In other words, did the plaintiff “show both that the reason was false, and that . . . [retaliation] was the real reason.” Weber v. Battista , 494 F.3d 179, 186 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (alterations in original and internal quo tations omitted) (quoting Hicks , 509 U.S. at 515). The court must consider whether the jury could “infer [retaliation] fr om the plaintiff’s prima facie case and any other evidence the plaintiff offers to show that the actions were [reta liatory] or that the non- [retaliatory] justification was pretextual.” Smith v. District of Columbia , 430 F.3d 450, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Murray v. Gilmore , 406 F.3d 708, 713 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). The court should assess the plaintiff’s challe nge to the employer’s e xplanation in light of the totality of the circumstances of the case. Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr. , 156 F.3d 1284, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc).16 2. The Plaintiff’s No n-Promotion Claims The plaintiff claims that he was pass ed over for promotion in 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2009 as a form of retaliation for his decision to file a discrimination claim with the EEO. 4th Am. Compl. ¶ 63. The defendant argues that the de fendant could not have retaliated against the plaintiff in 2004 because the plaintiff had not yet filed an EEO complaint. Def.’s Mot. at 29. With regard to the plaintiff’s 2005, 2008 and 2009 claims, the defendant maintains that the individuals responsible for making promotion d ecisions had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s EEO activity. Id. The plaintiff’s claim regardi ng his non-promotion in 2004 has no merit. The defendant’s employment action preceded the plaintiff’s EEO ac tivity; it is therefore impossible to conclude that the plaintiff’s EEO activity motivated the defendant’s acts. See Lewis v. District of Columbia , 653 F. Supp. 2d 64, 79 (D.D.C. 2009) (holding th at the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case of retaliation where the protected activity occu rred after the adverse action was taken); Marshall v. Potter , 634 F. Supp. 2d 66, 73 (D.D.C. 2009) (same). Turning to the plaintiff’s 2005, 2008 and 2009 clai ms, the court notes that the defendant has submitted several declarations and affidavits to show that the individuals serving on the Promotion Boards had no access to any informa tion regarding the plaintiff’s EEO activity. Def.’s Mot. at 22, id. Ex. 13-16, 18-32. The plaintiff does not contest this fact. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n. If the officials responsible for an allegedly adverse employment action are unaware of the employee’s prior EEO ac tivity, that employee cannot esta blish a prima facie case of retaliation. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden , 532 U.S. 268, 272 (2001) (noting that alleged discriminating officials must know of the employ ee’s EEO activity in order for the plaintiff to sustain a retaliation claim); Laboy v. O’Neill , 2002 WL 1050416, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 13, 2002)17 (same). Accordingly, the court grants summary judgment to the defenda nt on the plaintiff’s retaliation claims relating to his non-promotion.

3. The Plaintiff’s Non-Selection Claims The plaintiff claims that he was not selected for various Criminal Investigator positions as a form of retaliation for his EEO activity. 4th Am. Compl. ¶ 63. The defendant maintains that the officials who made the hiri ng decisions regarding these po sitions had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s EEO activity. Def.’s Mot. at 8. More specifically, the de fendant argues that all employment decisions were made by a panel of individuals who reviewed the applications in light of the required qual ifications listed in th e vacancy announcement. See id. , Ex. 43, 44, 46. The defendant maintains that these applications did not contain any information regarding the applicant’s prior EEO activity. Id. , Ex. 48-50. The plaintiff does not submit any evidence to the contrary. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n. As discussed earlier , the plaintiff may not succeed on a retaliation claim when the official charged with retaliation was unaware of the plaintiff’s EEO activity. Breeden , 532 U.S. at 272; Laboy v. O’Neill , 2002 WL 1050416, at *1. Accordingly, the court grants summary judgment to the defendant on this claim as well.

4. The Plaintiff’s Reduced Job Assignments Claim The plaintiff claims that the defendant re taliated against him in the fall of 2007 by significantly reducing his job assignments. 4th Am . Compl. ¶ 63. The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s reduced job duties refl ected the plaintiff’s mandatory re tirement. Def.’s Mot. at 46. In addition, the defendant notes that the plai ntiff responded generously to the plaintiff’s discrimination complaint by delaying the plaintiff’ s imminent retirement, granting the plaintiff a18 temporary job assignment and giving the plainti ff several thousand dollars in travel expenses while his claim was investigated. Id. Accordingly, the defendant argues that its acts cannot be considered “adverse” under the relevant statutes. Id. The plaintiff argues that his reduced job assignments were “undeniably” acts of retaliation. Pl.’s Opp’n at 16. In general, an employment action is consider ed “adverse” in the reta liation context if it “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or s upporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. Purely subjective injuries, such as di ssatisfaction with a reassignment, are not adverse actions. Holcomb v. Powell , 433 F.3d 889, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that she suffered some “obj ectively tangible harm.” Id. Of particular relevance to this case, a transfer to a new positio n after an employee’s contract expires generally does not constitute an adverse action. Gaujac v. EDF, Inc. , 601 F.3d 565, 578 (D.C. Cir. 2010). This is true even if the plainti ff does not approve of the new position. Id. Under the rules of the Foreign Service, th e defendant faced mandatory retirement on September 30, 2007. Def.’s Mot. at 10-11. The defe ndant maintains that it was standard Foreign Service practice to assign a retiring employ ee’s assignments to another individual. Id. at 11. The plaintiff filed a grievance in August 2007, a month before the mandatory retirement was set to take effect. Id. The defendant maintains – and the plaintiff does not contest – that an employee who files such a grievance is generall y “assigned to separation from the Service with the effective date of the separation action to remain undetermined pending the outcome of the employee’s grievance.” Id. , Ex. 57. That employee is then entit led to three days of consultations in Washington, D.C. to manage ad ministrative matte rs and receive per diem payments. Id. In the present case, the defendant appears to have erred in the plaintiff’ s favor by assigning the plaintiff to Washington D.C. for an indefinite period. Id. at 11-12. The plai ntiff was assigned to19 a “miscellaneous” position, which the defendant ordi narily uses to bridge gaps in assignments and training. Id. at 12. The defendant has submitted declarations of witnesses that tend to show that the defendant was asked to assist wi th a staffing shortage in the Cr iminal Investigations Division with the Office of Investigati ons and Counterintelligence. Id. at 48; Def.’s Reply at 7. The plaintiff does not contro vert this evidence. See Pl.’s Mot at 15-16. In addition, the plaintiff does not controvert the fact th at he was given an indefinite extens ion with pay and travel expenses to Washington, D.C., when the ordinary regulations in place would have re quired his immediate retirement. Def.’s Mot. at 12. Although the plaintiff may have been disple ased with his interim assignment in Washington, D.C., this is not a genuine dispute of material fact. See Holcomb v. Powell , 433 F.3d at 902. The relevant question for the purpo ses of the plaintiff’s claim is whether the defendant’s actions would dissuade an employ ee from making claims of discrimination. Baird , 662 F.3d at 1249. Here the facts are uncontroverted : the plaintiff received an extension of his employment tenure and several thousand dollars in travel expenses when the defendant’s internal regulations called for his immedi ate retirement. The court cannot conclude, as the plaintiff suggests, that these benefits would “di ssuade” an employee from making a claim of discrimination. Gaujac v. EDF, Inc. , 601 F.3d at 578

. Accordingly, the court concludes that no reasonable juror could find that this favorable treatment was a form of retaliation. The court therefore grants the defendant’s motion fo r summary judgment as to this claim.20 6. The Plaintiff’s Suspension Claim The plaintiff claims that he was retaliat ed against in January 2008 when he was suspended without pay for failing to pay the bala nce on a government-issued credit card. Pl.’s Opp’n at 15, 16. The defendant argues that the pl aintiff was suspended for failing to pay the bills associated with a government-issued credit card. Def.’s Mot. at 52. The defendant argues the officials who suspended the plaintiff had no acce ss to or knowledge of the plaintiff’s EEO records. Id. , Ex. 75, 76. More specifically, the defenda nt maintains that the section of the Department of State that is task ed with disciplining employees fo r these infractions is separate from that part of the agency that ha s access to the Plaint iff’s EEO activity. Id. The plaintiff counters that he was entitled to reimbursement for the charges he put on the credit card. Pl.’s Opp’n at 15. The plaintiff does not controve rt, however, the fact that the plaintiff was delinquent in pa ying his credit card bills. Id. In addition, the plaintiff submits no evidence to suggest that the official who or dered his suspension had any access to his EEO records. See id. Because the plaintiff has proffered no evid ence to suggest that the official who ordered his suspension was aware of his EEO act ivity, the court concludes that no reasonable juror could determine that the defendant’s stated reason for suspending the plaintiff is merely pretext. Cuddy v. Carmen , 694 F.2d at 856-57 (concluding that a plaintiff’s retaliation claim cannot stand if there is no evidence that the defe ndant was aware of the pl aintiff’s EEO activity). Accordingly, the court grants the de fendant’s motion for summary judgment.21 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court gran ts the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 9th day of March, 2012.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge