When EEOC Summary Judgments Aren’t the End: Lessons from Dickerson v. Carnahan, Civil Case No. 3:25cv25 (Eastern District of Virginia)

The case of Danielle Dickerson v. U.S. General Services Administration is a textbook example of why federal employees shouldn’t lose hope if their EEOC claim is dismissed at the administrative level. It also highlights an essential lesson for employers: unproven allegations of “poor performance” or “customer complaints” cannot substitute for real evidence when discrimination is alleged.

The Facts

Danielle Dickerson, a service-disabled veteran, began working for the General Services Administration (GSA) in a human resources role in March 2021. She was in a one-year probationary period and performed her duties effectively for the first seven months. Her job required prompt responses to a high volume of customer requests, which she consistently handled without issue.

On November 4, 2021, Dickerson suffered a medical episode at work due to her thyroid condition and related disorders. Afterward, she disclosed her disabilities to her supervisor, Alisha Gayle. Almost immediately, performance concerns were raised, allegedly including customer complaints and errors in her work. Dickerson continued to meet expectations in most areas, but the GSA terminated her employment in March 2022, citing poor performance and customer complaints.

EEOC Proceedings

Dickerson pursued relief through the EEOC, including taking her supervisor’s deposition. The Administrative Judge ordered the agency to produce documentation of the alleged customer complaints. GSA failed to provide any such evidence. Despite this, the EEOC Administrative Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the agency, dismissing Dickerson’s claims.

Federal Court Reversal

Undeterred, Dickerson filed her case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This time, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that Dickerson had plausibly alleged a violation of the Rehabilitation Act:

1. She had a recognized disability.

2. She was otherwise qualified for her position.

3. Her termination plausibly occurred because of her disability, not because of documented performance issues.

4. Notwithstanding the Agency’s contention that Ms. Dickerson had these work issues and customer complaints, when the Agency was required to produce the actual complaints and work examples of written work deficiencies, it could not. This is so typical in employment discrimination litigation.

The court emphasized that allegations of poor performance or customer complaints are not enough to dismiss a case if the employer cannot provide supporting evidence. Once this issue of fact exists, it is for a jury, not an administrative judge, to resolve. This decision ultimately led to a successful settlement for Dickerson.

Key Takeaways

1. EEOC dismissals aren’t the final word. Administrative law judges may grant summary judgment even when an employer fails to produce evidence. Federal employees should remember that filing in federal court can provide a second chance to have their claims fairly heard.

2. Employers must prove allegations. Claims of poor performance or customer complaints are not automatically valid. Without evidence, these claims cannot justify dismissal and may expose the employer to liability for discrimination.

3. Disability disclosure matters. In Dickerson’s case, performance concerns arose after her supervisor learned of her disability. This timing is critical in proving discriminatory intent under the Rehabilitation Act.

4. Jury trials remain a vital safeguard. When facts are disputed, especially regarding the motives behind a termination, the resolution should occur before a jury, not solely on paper at the summary judgment stage.

The Bottom Line

Your career deserves advocates who understand how to navigate complex federal employment law. Danielle Dickerson’s case shows that strategic, experienced representation can turn the tide—even when the odds seem stacked. If you’re facing workplace discrimination or wrongful termination, having the right legal team in your corner can be the difference between giving up and winning. When it counts, you need someone who will fight relentlessly for you: and we are here to do just that.

https://www.morrisfischerlaw.com/s/36-Memorandum-Opinion-Denying-GSAs-MTD.pdf