Opinion ID: 147535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Performance Assessments

Text: Finally, we address the grant of summary judgment on Counts XII and XIV, alleging that Porter received a retaliatory adverse interim performance assessment in, respectively, July 2003 and September 2004. The district court granted summary judgment on each count on the ground that the evaluations were not material adverse actions so as to constitute actionable retaliation. We agree as to Count XII but not Count XIV. In order to prevail upon a claim of unlawful retaliation, an employee must show she engaged in protected activity, as a consequence of which her employer took a materially adverse action against her. Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313, 1320 (D.C.Cir.2009) (internal quotation omitted). A materially adverse action is one that `could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.' Id. (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006)) (other internal quotation omitted). The 2003 interim assessment falls short of this standard. On July 7, 2003, in a face-to-face meeting, Turner assessed Porter as borderline unacceptable and criticized his performance of various tasks. The assessment was delivered orally, with no written record placed in Porter's personnel files, and it was superseded by his year-end annual review. Decl. of Melvin C. Porter ¶¶ 58-59 (dated Sept. 15, 2006) (Porter Decl.) (ex. 1 to Pl.'s Rule 7.1(h) Statement in Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (filed Sept. 19, 2006) (Pl.'s Statement)); see Automated Directives System (ADS) 462.3.1.1, 462.3.6. [6] Thus, the interim assessment did not affect Porter's `position, grade level, salary, or promotion opportunities' and was therefore not a materially adverse action. Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1199 (D.C.Cir. 2008)). Count XIV presents a different situation. In it, Porter alleges Turner retaliated against him again in the 2004 interim assessment. On September 1, 2004, Turner issued him a Notification of Unacceptable Performancea rating that informs an employee that his or her performance teetered on the lowest rating possible for an Agency employee. Porter Decl. ¶ 62; see 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28, 63. In contrast to the 2003 interim assessment, the 2004 evaluation was in writing and was placed in Porter's personnel file notwithstanding USAID's policy that [n]ormally, interim evaluations are retained in the operating unit and not submitted to the Office of Human Resources for filing in an employee's Official Evaluation File. ADS 462.3.6.1; see Porter Decl. ¶ 63. Moreover, it was accompanied by a 120-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), which outline[d] the required activities and level of performance needed to upgrade his evaluation to needs improvement. Memo. from Barbara N. Turner to Melvin Porter at 1 (dated Sept. 1, 2004) (Pl.'s Statement ex. 56); see Porter Decl. ¶ 61. Under Civil Service regulations and USAID policies, the rating and the PIP could expose him to removal, reduction in grade, withholding of within grade increase or reassignment. See 5 C.F.R. § 432.104; ADS 462.3.3.1. Given their serious consequences affecting Porter's `position, grade level, salary, or promotion opportunities,' the negative assessment together with the PIP constituted a material adverse action. Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's summary judgment on Counts I-IV, VIII, X and XII and reverse its judgment on Counts V, VI and XIV. We remand for further action consistent with this opinion. So ordered.