A female executive, who had been reassigned to a position with less authority, later sued her employer, alleging that her supervisor had discriminated against her on the basis of sex. The case was ultimately decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

What happened. In 1970, “Gabrielle” was hired by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Over the next 25 years, she worked her way up through the ranks, eventually being named director of the Office of Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance Systems in 1995. In that Senior Executive Service (SES) position, she supervised 269 federal employees and about 500 contractors, had oversight over 96 programs, and managed a $300 million-plus budget.

About 2 years later, she was reassigned to the FAA’s Office of Information Technology to serve as program manager for the Year 2000 (Y2K) Project. In that capacity, she was responsible for supervising four federal employees and four contracts, and she reported to one of her former peers. She had no budget.

In a June 12, 1997, memo about his decision to reassign Gabrielle, an associate administrator for research and acquisitions assured her that this was a lateral move and stated that her “background and technical knowledge” could be very helpful with the Y2K Project. However, he also cited her “fail[ure] to provide … direction and support,” “allowing [a] program to languish” as well as her general lack of “leadership qualities.”

After only 6 months in her new job, Gabrielle took early retirement. She later filed suit against the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), alleging that the reassignment constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A magistrate judge granted summary judgment to DOT, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision, saying that a reasonable juror could conclude that Gabrielle had suffered an adverse employment action and could infer that the action was prompted by discrimination. After a jury trial, the jury found for DOT, and the magistrate judge denied Gabrielle’s motion for a new trial. She filed a second appeal with the appeals court.

What the court said. This time, the appeals court affirmed. Gabrielle had argued that the magistrate judge had erred by improperly instructing the jury on what constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII, by not instructing the jury that it could infer that missing DOT evidence would be unfavorable to the agency, by denying her motion for a new trial, and by depriving her of a “fair and impartial” trial.

The appeals court concluded that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion on the claims related to the jury instructions. Regarding the first claim, the court said, “… [T]he magistrate judge correctly instructed the jury on the relevant legal theory. The fact that she did so without including the precise language … [Gabrielle] requested was not an abuse of discretion.”

In addition, the court agreed with the magistrate judge that a new trial is not warranted. “… [T]he record contains more than enough evidence to uphold the jury’s determination that … [Gabrielle’s] reassignment was not an adverse employment action … [She] retained her pay grade and her SES status, and there is evidence that her new position—far from harming her current or future professional prospects—in fact proved vital, visible, and prestigious.”

Finally, the court said there was no evidence of “a high degree of favoritism or antagonism” in the magistrate judge’s comments, and as such, there is no need to reverse the decision on Gabrielle’s claim that she was denied a fair trial. Czekalski v. LaHood, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Cir., No. 08-5431 (12/29/09).

Point to remember: To avoid discrimination lawsuits, employers should develop a clear, written policy against discrimination and make sure all of their employees are familiar with it. Also, train managers and make sure they understand that they cannot base reassignment decisions on an employee’s gender or other category protected under Title VII (e.g., age, race, color, national origin, religion, and disability).