Case Briefs

Stoe v Barr (DOJ)

Stoe's Case for Gender and Age Discrimination

Debra Stoe sued the Attorney General of the United States in his official capacity as the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging that she was denied a promotion to Division Director based on her gender, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, and her age, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 633a. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DOJ and remanded the case for trial.

The court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude that the DOJ’s stated reason for denying Stoe the promotion was pretextual, and that the real reason for her non-selection was discrimination.

Background

Stoe worked for the DOJ for many years, beginning in 1998. In 2014, she applied for a promotion to the Division Director position in the Policy and Standards Division of the DOJ’s Office of Science and Technology (OST).

This position would require her to run the standards program, serve on the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP), work on body armor projects, and oversee conformity assessment duties.

Stoe had experience in all of these areas, and she had even been performing some of the duties of the Division Director position for a number of years, including serving as the alternate representative for the DOJ on the ICSP.

She had also received excellent performance reviews and numerous awards for her work.

Selection Process and Evidence of Discrimination

Chris Tillery, Stoe’s second-line supervisor, effectively controlled the selection process for the new Division Director. He assembled a three-member panel, including himself, to interview the candidates.

Tillery prepared five questions that the panel was to ask the candidates, each of which carried equal weight, with only one question focusing on standards and conformity assessment, which was one of the most important responsibilities of the position.

Stoe testified that, over the years, Tillery treated her worse than her male colleagues.

He would interrupt her, challenge her authority, belittle her, and take credit for her ideas.
He treated her male colleagues with respect and deference.

Stoe’s colleague, Christine Crossland, corroborated this view of Tillery’s treatment of women, stating in a declaration that Tillery had created a male-dominated workplace culture that was hostile to women.

Tillery denied that he had any gender bias, but he admitted in his deposition that he had never helped promote a woman to a position above the GS-13 level.

Between 2010 and 2014, he made at least six promotion decisions elevating men to the GS-14 or GS-15 levels.

Stoe argued that the selection process was tainted by Tillery’s gender bias. She provided evidence that:

Tillery had ruled her out of consideration for the promotion even before the interview process began.
Tillery had designed the interview questions and process to mask her superior qualifications.
Tillery had allowed gender bias to taint his scoring of the candidates in their interviews.
Tillery had influenced the scoring of other panelists.
Tillery had, in effect, reported to his supervisor that another candidate had been selected before deliberations with the other panel members had concluded.
Tillery provided shifting and false rationales for his actions.

In addition to evidence of Tillery’s gender bias and manipulation of the selection process, Stoe offered compelling evidence that she was substantially more qualified for the Division Director position than the candidate who was selected, Mark Greene.

Although the court did not conclusively decide if Stoe was ‘significantly’ or ‘markedly’ more qualified than Greene, it noted that Stoe was relying not only on comparative qualifications evidence, but also on procedural irregularities in the selection process.

Legal Analysis and Conclusions

The court analyzed Stoe’s claims under a burden-shifting framework.

Because there was no direct evidence of discrimination, the court applied the framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.

Prima Facie Case of Discrimination: The court found that Stoe had easily established a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she was a member of a protected class, was qualified and applied for the position, was rejected for the position, and that the position was filled by someone else.
Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason: It was undisputed that the DOJ had met its burden to produce evidence that Stoe was rejected for a facially legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, i.e., the selection decision was based on the candidates’ interview performances, and Greene was selected because, according to the DOJ, he was better qualified.
Pretext for Discrimination: The court then examined whether Stoe had produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the DOJ’s stated reason was pretextual. The court held that a factfinder’s disbelief of the defendant’s stated reasons may support an inference of intentional discrimination.

The court found that Stoe had presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the DOJ’s stated reason for her non-selection was pretextual. The court relied on several pieces of evidence:

Evidence of Tillery’s Gender Bias: The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Stoe’s evidence of Tillery’s treatment of her and other female colleagues, including his statements and actions, revealed his gender bias.
Tillery’s Scoring of the Candidates: The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Tillery’s scoring of the candidates’ interview responses was suspect and could have been manipulated to ensure that Greene received a higher score than Stoe.
Tillery’s Shifting Rationales for Selecting Greene: The court found that a reasonable jury could view Tillery’s shifting explanations for selecting Greene as further evidence of pretext.
The court rejected DOJ’s argument that the selection process was fair and that Tillery’s support for Higgins, who was also a woman, negated any inference of discrimination.

The court concluded that the evidence presented by Stoe, when viewed in its entirety and in the light most favorable to Stoe, was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide.

Jury Verdict

The jury awarded Stoe $445,000 acknowledging her claims that she was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified male colleagues.