## Facts

- Rosabelle V. Judge, a Black female civilian Army employee, worked as a GS-13 EEO Specialist and Deputy EEO Officer at Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) in Heidelberg, Germany, after transferring into the EEO job series in 1974.
- Judge filed four administrative EEO complaints (1978, 1981, 1983), later consolidated into a civil action, alleging race and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.
- The challenged actions were: (1) a 1977 career rating panel (SKAP) decision not to rate her “Highly Qualified,” (2) non-selection in 1981 for EEO Officer at HQ USAREUR, (3) non-selection in 1981 for Federal Women’s Program (FWP) Manager, and (4) a 1981–1982 merit pay performance appraisal Judge viewed as unusually low.
- Regarding the SKAP rating, the Army used a structured panel process to rate multiple candidates; Judge claimed her credentials warranted “Highly Qualified,” but the panel placed her lower.
- For the EEO Officer vacancy, the selecting command considered Judge and other candidates; the other leading candidates had stronger recent performance evaluations, while Judge had multiple “C” ratings.
- A panel recommended another candidate for EEO Officer; that candidate declined, and when the panel reconvened it again did not recommend Judge.
- For the FWP Manager position, Judge relied on her prior collateral-duty FWP experience; selecting officials cited the selectee’s more recent and directly relevant experience and their comparative assessment of candidates.
- For the 1981–1982 appraisal, supervisors evaluated Judge under stated objectives and standards and documented performance criticisms; Judge alleged the rating was retaliatory.

## Issues

1. Whether the Army’s SKAP rating, two non-selections, and performance appraisal constituted intentional race or sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.
2. Whether the non-selections and performance appraisal were retaliatory because of Judge’s prior EEO activity, in violation of Title VII.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the Secretary of the Army on all claims.
- The court held Judge did not carry her burden to prove discrimination or retaliation as to any challenged action.
- The court found the Army articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons grounded in comparative qualifications and documented performance, and Judge failed to prove those reasons were pretext for unlawful motive.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment and retaliation claims follow a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case; the employer must articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons; the plaintiff must prove pretext and unlawful motive.
- In promotion/selection disputes, comparative qualifications and contemporaneous performance evaluations may constitute legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for choosing another candidate.
- Evidence of retaliation requires a causal connection between protected activity and the adverse action; timing alone, without supporting proof of retaliatory motive or irregular procedures, is generally insufficient.
- Courts do not reweigh personnel judgments absent evidence that the challenged decision was driven by discrimination or retaliation.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Judge’s Title VII race, sex, and retaliation claims arising from a career rating, two non-selections, and a performance appraisal, concluding the Army relied on consistent, performance-based assessments and Judge failed to show discriminatory or retaliatory intent or pretext.


Judge v. Marsh, 649 F. Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1986)