A District of Columbia court has ruled in favor of Fort Myer Construction Corp. (FMCC) in a retaliation lawsuit filed by former employee Brandon Strong. The court's decision, issued on November 2, 2026, concluded that Strong failed to demonstrate that FMCC's actions amounted to an adverse employment action after he filed a complaint regarding workplace discrimination. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

The case, known as Civil Action No. 2025-1011, began when Strong was hired by FMCC in September 2023 as a pipe layer. The dispute arose after Strong complained about an incident involving his coworkers, which he characterized as harassment and discrimination. Following his complaint, FMCC proposed a reassignment to a different worksite, which Strong ultimately rejected. He later submitted a doctor's note indicating uncertainty about his return to work and did not return to the company.

Background

Brandon Strong was hired by FMCC on September 12, 2023, at a base hourly rate of $23.00. Shortly after starting, he reported to the Old Branch Road worksite, where he received a pay increase to $25.19 per hour due to a separate contract. On November 14, 2023, Strong worked his usual shift but felt uncomfortable after a coworker accessed his phone without permission during a carpool ride. The following day, he submitted a written complaint to FMCC, alleging privacy violations and discriminatory treatment.

On November 16, after lodging his complaint, Strong spoke with Human Resources about a potential reassignment to a two-person electrical team. However, FMCC proposed a different worksite in Virginia instead, which would have involved similar job responsibilities but a shorter commute. Strong never reported to the proposed worksite and subsequently submitted a doctor's note that did not provide a clear return date, leading to his departure from the company.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the court granted FMCC's motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claims. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan stated, "No reasonable jury could find that FMCC’s proposal was adverse. To state the obvious, FMCC made no changes to Mr. Strong’s employment." The court emphasized that FMCC's action of proposing a reassignment did not constitute a materially adverse employment action, as Strong was not compelled to accept the new position and could have continued working at his original site.

The court noted that Strong's claims of retaliation were not supported by evidence demonstrating that FMCC's actions would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. The ruling highlighted that FMCC acted promptly after receiving Strong's complaint and that he chose not to engage further with the company regarding the proposed reassignment.

Impact

This ruling has broader implications for workplace discrimination and retaliation claims. It clarifies that not all employer actions following a complaint will be deemed retaliatory, particularly if the employee is not forced into a less favorable position. The decision reinforces the need for employees to understand the nuances of workplace rights and the legal definitions of adverse actions.

The court's decision may also serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future, potentially impacting how employees approach complaints and how employers respond to such allegations. It underscores the importance of clear communication between employees and management regarding workplace issues.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Strong plans to appeal the ruling. There are no related cases pending in the court system at this time.