[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
case number 24-5125.

[00:00:04] Speaker 01:
Katherine J. Mira, a felon, versus Pamela Bondi.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
Mr. Swick for the a felon, Mr. Silverman for the Epoley.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Mr. Swick.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
You may proceed when you're ready.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
We're here because a district court erred when an improperly applied the discrimination of all nine, retaliation of all nine, stage of the case.

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
In this case, Ms.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
Muir complained about disability, discrimination, and retaliation.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
El-Peli responded that she was fired because she failed at PIP.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
And so the issue now is discrimination, retaliation, or not.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
The district court kind of looked

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
jump to the conclusion that because she failed the PIP, there couldn't be any discrimination or retaliation.

[00:01:04] Speaker 02:
But that's not what the law is.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
In the George versus Levitt case, the court makes clear as it's 405 up third and page 415, the court makes clear that, well, really two things.

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
One is that the

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
Just because the reasons are true or not false doesn't mean there's not a discrimination or retaliation.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
And on the other hand, as the Pelley argues, even if the reasons aren't true, like the subjective feelings of the deciding official, what matters here, we would submit that it's clear

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
that as of June of 2018, Ms.

[00:01:59] Speaker 02:
Mira didn't have performance problems.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
There was a mid-year evaluation done at that time.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
It was kind of a friendly back and forth.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
Mira thanking her supervisor, Darlene Johnson, and no indication that there's any unsatisfactory performance.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
At the same time, almost, there's this discrimination case pending regarding the accommodations that Ms.

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
Mears requested.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
And there's a settlement of that also in June of 2018.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
At that time, there's a written agreement comes forward from the settlement.

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
And there's immediate pushback from the supervisor, Darlene Johnson, about

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
about how much accommodation and what the accommodation is going to be.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
And then there ends up being extended email back and forth trying to work out what the accommodation is going to be.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
And it's not really until October 5, 2018 that they finally come to a resolution of what the accommodations should be.

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
Within days of that, there's like a series of hostile type actions towards Ms.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
Mara beginning on October 12th when there's an issue about her complaining about micromanaging.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
But more startling, what happens is in, I think it was on November 17th,

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
more than a month and a half after the end of the performance period, Ms.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
Johnson issues a mid-year performance evaluation.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
I don't think that any juror looking at that is going to think, how do you get your mid-year evaluation two months, a month and a half after the period has ended completely?

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
But that's what happened.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
You know, the evaluation gets put off for six months, and then no surprise that the evaluation, when it's finally done, May 16, 2019, is unsatisfactory, which launches the PIP.

[00:04:34] Speaker 02:
And it's interesting, I think, when the Civil Service Reform Act was first passed, the idea of a PIP genuinely was that supervisors would help their

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
struggling subordinates to improve their performance.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
But I think that's a myth.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
And in practice, the performance improvement plan is just a precursor to a termination, which is what happened here.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
Now, if we look at it in the light of the performance improvement plan coming after the

[00:05:15] Speaker 02:
mid-year done after the close of the rating period and the performance appraisal done six months after the mid-year based on stuff outside the rating period.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
I think it's good reason to question some of the things that happen.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
In order for us to reverse under our case law, we're performing de novo review

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
And we have to conclude, don't we, that the deciding official did not really honestly and reasonably believe the things that she wrote in upholding the termination recommendation, right?

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
Isn't that our standard?

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
Sort of, but not completely.

[00:06:11] Speaker 02:
the as far as the designing official Mary powers.

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
She essentially just rubber stamp what Miss Johnson said answered a question that's as a legal matter.

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
What do you believe you have to establish to convince us to reverse?

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
Well, also in the George versus Levy case, the court talks about if there's a subordinate

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
official, like Darlene Johnson, that influences the deciding official, then there's a basis for discrimination or retaliation based upon that finding.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
I think that's at 405 F third.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
I saw that.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
That's your kind of alternative backup argument, the cat's paw theory.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
But your primary theory

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
I mean, if you don't want to talk about the primary theory, that's fine.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
But I thought your primary theory was not cat's paw, but that just basically the decision didn't meet the framework.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
I'm trying to get you to focus on

[00:07:33] Speaker 03:
Why we should find that why is it that?

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Is it that even if?

[00:07:40] Speaker 03:
Miss powers honestly and reasonably believed what she wrote Nonetheless, there was enough evidence of pretext there to overcome That finding or we should just not find that she honestly and reasonably believed what she wrote

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
Well, if we take Miss Powers at her word in the very first page of her decision, she says, I'm not going to address the discrimination and retaliation.

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
And that's really the foundation for the defense, that there's discrimination and retaliation going on.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
And you have to look at the charges by Miss Johnson in light of the background.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
of the discrimination and retaliation.

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
I think that.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
You think that Ms.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
Power should have said, well, because Ms.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
Mara is concerned about whether Johnson is discriminating and retaliating against her, I should kind of factor that in when I evaluate her performance.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
Yes, in a way.

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
Because what Ms.

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
Powers should do to say, OK, the employee here, Ms.

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
Mayer, is contending against the offering responses.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
The court kind of faults us because we responded to all that stuff.

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
But offering responses to the charges against her.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
But the key.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
to her thing is that her contention is that these are all motivated by discrimination and retaliation.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
You have to see that background when you look at the allegations.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
One of the allegations is that Ms.

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
Mira, she did like 60 reviews.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
And Ms.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
Johnson said she looked at six of them, found three or more errors in three of the six she looked at and therefore she failed to pick up on that point.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
Okay, but Ms.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
Mears thinks these are minor errors and there were a few of them, that's her response.

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
But the point is, if these are really serious errors, why didn't she look at the other?

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
But one of the difficulties is the cases that govern are very clear that the court doesn't sit as a super,

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
personnel department to reevaluate what we would have done had we been running the workplace.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
And that's where the standard that Judge Wilkins mentioned comes into play, that to overcome summary judgment,

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
It's your burden to show a genuine factual dispute as to whether the deciding official, and here that's powers, even sort of combining with the cat's paw theory, Johnson and powers, have you shown that the deciding official or officials didn't honestly and reasonably believe their reasons, their assessment,

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
that Ms.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
Mera did not successfully complete the PIP.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
And if they were honest and reasonable in coming to that conclusion, then it doesn't matter that Ms.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
Mera thinks, well, you should have evaluated it differently.

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
And it seems like a lot of the argument in the briefing and in the response to the defendant's statement of material facts not in dispute

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
is, no, that's her version.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
My version is different.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
And I think the question that we're asking here is, do you agree that that's not enough under the law for her to say, yeah, I get it that she thought that, but my version is different and my version is

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
more persuasive.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
Is that the the.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
When you say my version you're speaking.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
Mira is saying her version is more persuasive.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
It depends on which of the things you're talking about.

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
So let's say the red books which the district court talked about in some detail.

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
Okay the red books.

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
Mira had been doing red books for years.

[00:12:23] Speaker 02:
And her red books had always been satisfactory in the past.

[00:12:28] Speaker 02:
There was no change in the SOP or anything.

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
She did the red books pretty much how she had always done.

[00:12:35] Speaker 01:
The defense puts in evidence that there were content errors.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
Not sure I'm going to get the details correct, but a misstatement of an address or content errors.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
And the only response that Ms.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
Meara gave

[00:12:52] Speaker 01:
is there were the style changes.

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
People's styles differ.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
She never addresses the notion that there were actually substantive errors in those.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
And she just sort of says like, oh, we had back and forth.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
But the employer is saying, for my purposes, multiple rounds of edits and changes

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
on this body of work that she should know how to do.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
She's been doing it for 20 years.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
The employer says, I'm not satisfied with that.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
And I guess the question is, what is the evidence that Johnson saying and powers affirming, that's not satisfactory, is other than like,

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
tightening up the management, but is actually retaliatory.

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
How do we infer that the intent was not a good faith evaluation of like, is this the way we want to get the work done, but was actually biased against Ms.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Mera because of her EEO activity?

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
What's the evidence of what's really going on?

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
The best evidence of that is the timing of the tip.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
And the fact that the mid-year is done a month and a half after the end of the rating period, not at the mid-year of the rating period, but a month and a half afterwards.

[00:14:17] Speaker 02:
And then there's an unsatisfactory performance six months following that.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
That, I think, is evidence that Ms.

[00:14:26] Speaker 02:
Johnson decided to fire Ms.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
Muir.

[00:14:30] Speaker 02:
And the PIP was just a matter of going through the motions.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
Now, the thing you mentioned about the address being wrong, that is a mistake, and it was corrected when it was caught.

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
The point of it is there's a standard working now that wasn't working for the last 10 years that these books have to have every detail correct.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
And why has Ms.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
Johnson now adopted that standard and applied it to Ms.

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
Meara under the circumstances?

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
The reasonable inference is because she decided to fire her back in

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
in November of 2000.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
But was there evidence that a different standard was being applied in this mirror than was applied to other employees?

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
There's no evidence about that.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
The evidence is that a different standard was applied in this mirror than had been applied in the past.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
So let's assume this hypothetical question, there's an employee that, you know, everyone likes them, but

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
They've been doing things wrong for 20 years.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
And then there's an edict from on high that we need to have everyone do everything correctly.

[00:15:54] Speaker 03:
And as a result, year 21, that employee is found to have made mistakes and as a result is let go.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
Well, I know that is that is that discrimination or retaliation.

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
Well, it couldn't be retaliation unless you had other circumstances which are retaliation, you know, protected activity as far as discrimination goes.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
If it's a legitimate thing, if there really wasn't eating from one high, which we didn't have here, but just even a change in Ms.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
Johnson's viewpoint, then it should have showed up in the mid-year that was done in June of the actual rating period.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
And, you know, that's the purpose of the mid-year is to give the employee a chance to correct things.

[00:16:52] Speaker 02:
Here, Ms.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
Mira is reluctant even to talk to Ms.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
Johnson about things because Ms.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
Johnson gets mad at her for asking her questions she thinks she shouldn't have the answer to.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
So, but the union, you know, collective bar agreement, you have to give notice during the mid-year

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
if you're gonna bring unsatisfactory performance.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
If at the end of the- Was there a grievance on that point if the collective bargaining agreement required the evaluation to be done by a certain party?

[00:17:27] Speaker 01:
Is that something that would be subject to grievance?

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
Well, it was done by the point.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
They just did another one.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
It was done by the point and then they just did another one after, you know, seven and a half months later.

[00:17:43] Speaker 01:
And the reason in the record that the employer gives for the delay was just wanting to cleanly separate the issue of the misuse of the government credit card and just resolve that.

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
And it took some iterations and the suspension was diminished and it was resolved.

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
And they wanted to have that just dealt with before

[00:18:12] Speaker 01:
doing the evaluation.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
And I think the only thing I read in the record that Ms.

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
Mira rebutted that as the legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the later timing was, well, that misconduct was separate from performance.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
They should have just done them both at the same time.

[00:18:32] Speaker 01:
They're separate tracks.

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
You know, that doesn't imply that it was bad faith, that it was a sort of part of a setup for retaliation for the employer to have decided otherwise.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
Let's just clear the air on this, and then we'll be able to separately and independently deal with the workplace issues.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
And you can question that subjectively, but I don't think we can question it without evidence that takes with Mera's disagreement with that.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
And it gives us a reason to think that she's pointed to something that actually shows retaliation.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
You can say this is ridiculous, which it was.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
She's ridiculous.

[00:19:20] Speaker 01:
It's ridiculous to think that you should have the one out of the way before you do the other.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
Is that what's ridiculous?

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
Which one?

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
They already did that mid-year.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
Right, but to have the credit card... The credit card was resolved, she did her time.

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
And then after that turned to the, admittedly belatedly turned to the performance review.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
Is that what you were saying?

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
I'm saying one of them has nothing to do with the other.

[00:19:48] Speaker 01:
I know, that's Samira's position, is that they're two separate things.

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
One has to do with it.

[00:19:51] Speaker 02:
You don't have to be a super personnel board to see that.

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
because how the employer completes its tasks is part of how an employer runs an office and I gathered some of the same people are involved in both and it's taking a certain amount of interaction and probably you know creating a certain amount of innovation on the part of supervisors and to me it seems not implausible that that's a good way to proceed to keep something that would feel

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
might make you feel negatively toward an employee.

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
And just close the door on that before you get into evaluating.

[00:20:30] Speaker 02:
The door was closed six months earlier when the punishment was finally determined.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
So now it's time to do her evaluation.

[00:20:43] Speaker 02:
Where's the justification for doing a second mid-year when you're already done with it?

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
I just think that that's inherently suspect that it's like turning a blind eye to things that are inherently suspect to say that you can do the mid-year evaluation a month and a half after the end of the rainy period.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
Mid-year is at the middle, not at the end.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
So I think that's... And why?

[00:21:18] Speaker 01:
I mean, that may be not dotting your I's and crossing your T's as an employer.

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
Why is it evidence of retaliation?

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
Why is that the deficiency that it reflects as opposed to just they weren't prioritizing it?

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
They'd already done it.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
Why'd they do another?

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
Why is the reason, when you say this is inexplicable, why is the reason you fill in there, rather than this is just they're not prioritizing things that Meera might need, but that the reason they're not prioritizing it and they're not more prompt is because they're out together because she exercised her EEO rights.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
That's what we as a court need to be able to point to.

[00:22:07] Speaker 02:
Because of the pushback that started in August,

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
of 2018, where Ms.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
Johnson is not approving.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
I mean, I can understand the way.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
I mean, she probably wasn't involved in the actual settlement, but someone comes back and starts to live with it, and she was not happy about it.

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
And that's evident going back and forth.

[00:22:33] Speaker 02:
And then in the end, Ms.

[00:22:35] Speaker 02:
Mirror pretty much gets her away.

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
that's that but that is i mean accommodation is a process and i understand that the decision was made what the accommodation would be but then to implement it the fact that there's communication about it is in your view enough to raise an inference of retaliation it's the fact that there's

[00:22:57] Speaker 01:
communication by Johnson saying I would say disagreement, but even if or disagreement, even if she's got got remote work.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
What about these times when we tend to do things in person like if I asked that question as a supervisor that

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
that itself raises an inference of retaliation?

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
No, but then if right after doing that you decide to do the extraordinary thing of a mid-year evaluation a month and a half after the rating periods ended, I mean there's something wrong there.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
You mentioned that the main evidence of retaliation is

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
the timing that was after Ms.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
Johnson was unhappy.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
And we do routinely recognize that at the prima facie stage.

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
But when we're in summary judgment with the full record, our cases say that you have to have positive evidence beyond mere proximity

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
to show that an employer had a retaliatory or discriminatory motive.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
And so I guess that's what this discussion has been.

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
Can you identify what's the best evidence, one, two, or three pieces of evidence that are the best evidence beyond the mere proximity of Ms.

[00:24:22] Speaker 01:
Mera's EEO activity and the termination?

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
You're asking for the best evidence of the retaliatory motive.

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
Beyond mere proximity.

[00:24:39] Speaker 02:
Well, the action itself is evidence of it.

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
It's extraordinary.

[00:24:45] Speaker 01:
Which action?

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
The action during the mid-year, a month and a half after the end of the rating period.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
And how did that disadvantage Ms.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
Mira?

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
She had a relatively positive mid-year at the mid-year, and now she has a

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
a so-called mid-year where Ms.

[00:25:04] Speaker 02:
Johnson writes all these notes to herself.

[00:25:08] Speaker 02:
Yeah, that's... Are you talking about the PIP?

[00:25:15] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:25:15] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:25:16] Speaker 02:
November 17th, I think the first PIP was in June.

[00:25:22] Speaker 02:
And then there's the email exchange on that.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
That's the actual PIP, I should say.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
And then the new PIP,

[00:25:30] Speaker 02:
The after the fact, that's done on November 17th.

[00:25:37] Speaker 02:
The rainy period ended September 30th.

[00:25:39] Speaker 02:
How can that be a PIP?

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
I mean, how can that be a mid-year evaluation?

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
It's just a little bit delayed.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
It's mid-year evaluation.

[00:25:52] Speaker 01:
It's evaluating conduct that was done in the first part of the year, but it's a bit delayed.

[00:25:56] Speaker 02:
Not evaluating conduct.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
It's performance.

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
Conduct in the job.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:26:01] Speaker 01:
In the job.

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
And it replaces one that found no articulated performance problems that was done at the time it was supposed to be done.

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
And it now comes up with them.

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
You know, after the immediate experience of having this disagreement, dissatisfaction by Ms.

[00:26:27] Speaker 02:
Johnson with the accommodation being granted to Ms.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
Meara.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
Meara needed accommodation.

[00:26:34] Speaker 02:
I, you know, sometimes think you could tell clients, well, can you just try to live with it how it is?

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
Because, you know, they're not going to like it if you push this.

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
But she needed it.

[00:26:47] Speaker 02:
I couldn't.

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
It's not something you could have told her.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
Are there questions?

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
And had you reserved rebuttal time?

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
One minute.

[00:27:02] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
Even though we've taken you beyond here a lot of time, we will give you the rebuttal.

[00:27:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:27:09] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
Mr. Silverman?

[00:27:18] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:27:19] Speaker 00:
Radley Silverman for the Attorney General.

[00:27:22] Speaker 00:
This case began with a large number of discrimination and retaliation claims based on a number of different arguments, actions, but has narrowed to a single question, whether Ms.

[00:27:36] Speaker 00:
Mara's termination was retaliation for protected activity.

[00:27:43] Speaker 00:
Mary Powers, the deciding official, provided a detailed reasonable explanation for her decision to remove

[00:27:51] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:27:52] Speaker 00:
Mara from Federal Service, and Ms.

[00:27:54] Speaker 00:
Mara fails to show a genuine issue as to whether that explanation was pretextual.

[00:28:01] Speaker 00:
Over the course of her 12 page memorandum,

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
Powers reviewed the 13 HIPP tasks that Mara needed to perform.

[00:28:15] Speaker 00:
She determined that Ms.

[00:28:16] Speaker 00:
Mara failed to adequately perform seven of those 13 tasks.

[00:28:22] Speaker 00:
Importantly, she did not take issue with Mara's factual accounts of what happened.

[00:28:32] Speaker 00:
and she cut Mara several breaks along the way, such as, for example, not holding it against Mara that Mara did not attend the monitoring visit due to what Mara said was a medical issue.

[00:28:47] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:28:48] Speaker 00:
Mara's arguments that this amounted to pretext

[00:28:53] Speaker 00:
Generally speaking, fall into two broad buckets.

[00:28:56] Speaker 00:
First, she argues that her performance simply was satisfactory, but an employee's own assessment of her own performance is insufficient to give rise to a genuine issue as to pretext as this court repeatedly is held.

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
Second, she acknowledges at times that there were some areas where her performance falls short, but nonetheless said that it was good enough and says there were some extenuating circumstances and that this should not be deemed so bad as to justify firing her.

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
But this court repeatedly has rejected exactly that kind of argument.

[00:29:43] Speaker 00:
At the end of the day,

[00:29:45] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:29:45] Speaker 00:
Mera's argument boils down to the contention that she should not have been fired, that her performance was good enough.

[00:29:58] Speaker 00:
Whether or not that's right or wrong, it does not suggest retaliation or protected activity.

[00:30:05] Speaker 01:
Bracketing whether it does on this record, just as a matter of what the doctrine is.

[00:30:09] Speaker 01:
Said that, you know, she contests and says her performance was satisfactory.

[00:30:16] Speaker 01:
If her performance was actually, I mean, you have to, as a plaintiff, get into the weeds a bit on those issues.

[00:30:25] Speaker 01:
If the employer says this, this, this, and this were wrong, and you as the employee, of course the employer is the judge of what the employer wants.

[00:30:35] Speaker 01:
But if you, as an employee, can point out that the nitpicking was trivial and the extreme, and that your version is credible, doesn't have to be definitive at the summary judgment stage, but that somebody could agree that your version, I knocked myself out, I did as good or better than I was doing in the past, there were two spelling errors,

[00:31:02] Speaker 01:
And suddenly, this was seen as a fireable level of performance.

[00:31:08] Speaker 01:
So clearly, her account is relevant.

[00:31:12] Speaker 01:
Her disputes about whether or not she performed, that's relevant to a retaliation claim, no?

[00:31:18] Speaker 00:
In theory, an employee's performance can be so

[00:31:23] Speaker 00:
plainly strong and the employer's counts of her performance so plainly erroneous that the sheer mismatch between what is obvious from the record and what the employees, the deciding officials decision says is so great.

[00:31:44] Speaker 00:
that could suggest retaliation.

[00:31:47] Speaker 00:
That is why this court has required that an employer honestly and reasonably believe its stated reasons.

[00:31:56] Speaker 00:
Because in theory, an employer's reason might be so unreasonable that just no one could really believe that that's what's happening here.

[00:32:07] Speaker 00:
But nothing like that happened in this case.

[00:32:09] Speaker 00:
Here, if you look at each of the seven tasks that Powers determined Mara failed, Powers' explanations are reasonable.

[00:32:19] Speaker 00:
They are logical.

[00:32:21] Speaker 00:
And Mara, importantly, does not take issue with Powers' factual account of what happened.

[00:32:29] Speaker 00:
So just to return to the redbooking example.

[00:32:33] Speaker 00:
This task required, this task provided that a single red book with more than three errors constitutes failure.

[00:32:43] Speaker 00:
Mara does not dispute that there was at least one red book with more than three errors.

[00:32:49] Speaker 00:
Instead, she argues, well, she really makes two arguments.

[00:32:52] Speaker 00:
One, she says these errors were stylistic in nature.

[00:32:57] Speaker 00:
But even putting aside the fact that her own assessment of her own work is insufficient to give rise to a genuine issue of pretext, the errors that Powers identified in the red books plainly went well beyond stylistic quibbles.

[00:33:14] Speaker 00:
These were substantive errors and omissions that an experienced grant program specialist should have known to avoid.

[00:33:23] Speaker 00:
Mara also argues that she received insufficient training on red books.

[00:33:30] Speaker 00:
Again, not disputing that there were, there's at least one red book with more than three errors, which under the language of the task constitutes failure, but says she didn't have enough training.

[00:33:40] Speaker 00:
And Powers explains there are two problems with this argument.

[00:33:43] Speaker 00:
First, it is undisputed that Mara, in fact, was provided training in May 2019, which is three months before she was placed on the PIP.

[00:33:55] Speaker 00:
At JA, I believe 762, in her response to the government statement of undisputed material facts, Mara concedes that fact.

[00:34:04] Speaker 00:
So she did, in fact, receive training fairly recently before she was put on the PIP.

[00:34:10] Speaker 00:
But even zooming out and looking at the bigger picture,

[00:34:13] Speaker 00:
This is an employee who had been in this job for 20 years generating red books, nine of which were under Johnson supervision specifically.

[00:34:25] Speaker 00:
So as powers reasonably explained, this is someone who understood what or should have understood what a red book required and specifically understood what this particular supervisor

[00:34:38] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:34:38] Speaker 00:
Johnson expected of a red book.

[00:34:40] Speaker 00:
Now, whether or not Mara agrees or disagrees with that explanation, nothing about Ms.

[00:34:46] Speaker 00:
Power's reasoning here is so bizarre or incredible as to give rise to an inference of pretext.

[00:34:56] Speaker 01:
I take Mr. Swick's principal pushback on that, that Ms.

[00:35:03] Speaker 01:
Mehra had a satisfactory job evaluation quite recently prior to the PIP.

[00:35:11] Speaker 01:
And so his inference that he would have us draw it is she was doing the job for the PIP.

[00:35:22] Speaker 01:
It was, it was frustration with her EO activity that pushed Johnson to tighten up the stand, find Mayor Ida Fisher.

[00:35:33] Speaker 01:
And your best response to that is?

[00:35:35] Speaker 00:
Well, this court in the carpenter case has rejected virtually that exact argument there.

[00:35:41] Speaker 00:
The plaintiff argued that she previously had received a five on a certain task and her performance had not changed.

[00:35:50] Speaker 00:
And so therefore she has to have earned a five for this period as well.

[00:35:54] Speaker 00:
And this court rejected that argument because it presumes that performance does not change over time.

[00:36:02] Speaker 00:
And we just we know that's not true.

[00:36:05] Speaker 00:
Each performance period is judged independently from the previous one.

[00:36:10] Speaker 00:
So the fact that one's performance was adequate the last time doesn't necessarily mean that it's adequate this time.

[00:36:18] Speaker 00:
I would also note that the undisputed evidence in the record, Johnson's testimony, Johnson testifies that she had in fact initially been planning to rate Mara as unsatisfactory for the 2016-17 period.

[00:36:35] Speaker 00:
But she decided to cut Mara break, wipe the slate clean because the misconduct

[00:36:43] Speaker 00:
Inquiry had just ended.

[00:36:45] Speaker 00:
So Johnson decided to give Mara another chance, essentially, to clean all that up.

[00:36:52] Speaker 00:
And that is shown not only in Johnson's deposition testimony, but also her contemporaneous email at the time, JA 394.

[00:37:02] Speaker 00:
She's sending an email about Mara's then in the works 2016-17 performance evaluation.

[00:37:11] Speaker 00:
and she says that she's planning to rate Mara unsatisfactory.

[00:37:15] Speaker 00:
Now we know that did not end up happening.

[00:37:19] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to take any questions or has.

[00:37:27] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:37:28] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:37:33] Speaker 01:
Mr. Swick, you don't have to give a rebuttal if you don't want to, but you have a minute if you'd like to.

[00:37:37] Speaker 02:
I'll say three things in one minute.

[00:37:40] Speaker 02:
I think I'll just stick with one.

[00:37:41] Speaker 02:
The case that the council cited where an employee argues that they should be outstanding this year because they were outstanding last year and this year they only got excellent.

[00:37:52] Speaker 02:
That really doesn't compare to saying, you know, you were satisfactorily last year, this year you're going to get fired.

[00:38:01] Speaker 02:
The judgment is for the supervisor, it is for management to make what's satisfactory and what isn't.

[00:38:07] Speaker 02:
But in Ms.

[00:38:08] Speaker 02:
Mira's view of her work isn't the key of it.

[00:38:13] Speaker 02:
What the key of it is, is her testimony about what the standard had been.

[00:38:17] Speaker 02:
And if the standard

[00:38:19] Speaker 02:
has changed that something that used to be satisfactory is unsatisfactory and going to be fired.

[00:38:25] Speaker 02:
She's as competent as anybody else to say what standard she was held to the last time.

[00:38:30] Speaker 02:
And here, the standard did change.

[00:38:34] Speaker 02:
There's no edict from above or anything like that.

[00:38:36] Speaker 02:
There's going to be new standards.

[00:38:38] Speaker 01:
But I have just one question on that.

[00:38:40] Speaker 01:
If an employer decides that it's been too sloppy in the supervision that it's doing and it decides to be more demanding, then for an employee who suffers from that to show that it's retaliation against

[00:39:02] Speaker 01:
her, she would have to show that other employees were not, Moore was not similarly demanded of other employees.

[00:39:14] Speaker 01:
that it wasn't a genuine across the board, come on, let's pull up our sock, but something targeted at her because of her protected activity.

[00:39:22] Speaker 01:
And we don't have any comparator evidence in this case.

[00:39:26] Speaker 02:
This is not a case for comparator evidence.

[00:39:30] Speaker 02:
But under the scenario you're describing, where the employer says,

[00:39:36] Speaker 02:
Like the council said, well, I was thinking about giving her an insight last year.

[00:39:40] Speaker 02:
So, you know, this year I'm going to, well, then it should have showed up in the PIP.

[00:39:45] Speaker 02:
Or not the PIP, excuse me, I keep saying that.

[00:39:47] Speaker 02:
The mid-year.

[00:39:47] Speaker 02:
It should have showed up in the mid-year at the midpoint.

[00:39:51] Speaker 02:
You know, notice, look, you know, you're not cutting it here, you got to buck up.

[00:39:56] Speaker 01:
It wasn't a glowing evaluation as I read it.

[00:39:59] Speaker 01:
I mean, if you're reading that as an employee who has gotten better evaluation in the past, you would draw, or you could readily draw a message from that, this is borderline performance.

[00:40:11] Speaker 02:
Well, I don't think so because of the tone.

[00:40:15] Speaker 02:
And you understand this isn't Doug.

[00:40:17] Speaker 02:
The email back and forth, that's not the mid-year.

[00:40:21] Speaker 02:
They talk.

[00:40:21] Speaker 01:
No, I know.

[00:40:22] Speaker 01:
There's an actual value.

[00:40:23] Speaker 02:
There's conversation.

[00:40:24] Speaker 02:
And Miss Meara's email reflects that she came away with it, like with a positive view.

[00:40:32] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:40:33] Speaker 01:
Any other questions?

[00:40:36] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:40:36] Speaker 01:
The case is submitted.