In Byrd v. Becerra, Civil Action No. 22-3746 (TSC), 2024 WL 4591438 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2024), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As to the “inference of discrimination” element, the court explained:
Plaintiff has also pleaded an inference of discrimination with respect to Count II. She alleges that she was issued “an unfairly low performance rating,” which “denied her a within grade increase and lowered her cash bonus, because of her race,” and her supervisors “did not rate any white Senior Advisors lower than [her]” that year. Am. Compl. at 10, 12. She also contends that her White colleagues were given her assignments and received opportunities to grow that she was not provided. Id. at 13. The Amended Complaint, taken as a whole, also sufficiently pleads that Plaintiff’s White colleagues were similarly situated to her. Plaintiff alleges that “almost all of” her White colleagues “had less experience” than her, id. at 6, and that she was “more qualified” than any of her White colleagues for a promotion, id. at 10. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that she was given an equal or lower performance rating than her less qualified and less experienced White colleagues, and that those colleagues received her assignments and growth opportunities that were denied to her because of her race. See Brown, 774 F 3d at 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Jbari, 304 F. Supp. 3d at 209 (allegations that plaintiff “was treated less favorably than others outside his protected class” sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage).
Defendant contends that Plaintiff does not allege that she “deserved a better [performance] rating than” the White Senior Advisors. Mot. at 16. Plaintiff does, however, allege that she was “more qualified” and experienced than the White Senior Advisors, Am. Compl. at 10; that she was the only Black Senior Advisor, id. at 2; and that her supervisors “did not rate any white Senior Advisors lower than [her] for this performance period,” id. at 10. The allegation that she was “more qualified” for a promotion than her colleagues implies that she performed equally or better than them as Senior Advisors. At the motion to dismiss stage, these allegations are sufficient.
The court further held that plaintiff’s allegations that she was given a lower performance rating, was not given growth opportunities, and had her substantive duties reassigned – are “adverse employment actions” under pertinent law.