A federal judge has thrown out a discrimination lawsuit filed by an FBI analyst against the Department of Justice, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove that race or gender played a role in her missed promotions.
U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich granted summary judgment Tuesday in favor of the Department of Justice, effectively ending the case (Little v. Garland) brought by Makya Little.
Little, an African American woman who has worked for the bureau since 2009, alleged she was repeatedly passed over for leadership roles and retaliated against for speaking up about diversity issues.
The court found that while Little clearly disagreed with the FBI’s hiring decisions, she could not legally demonstrate that the government’s reasons for rejecting her were pretextual.
“Title VII liability cannot rest solely upon a judge’s determination that an employer misjudged the relative qualifications of admittedly qualified candidates,” Friedrich wrote in the memorandum opinion.
The dispute centered on Little’s rejection for four separate unit chief and section chief positions between 2019 and 2021. The FBI consistently argued that the candidates selected—who included a Hispanic woman, a white man, a white woman, and a Black man—had more “front-line leadership experience” or performed better in interviews.
In one instance, Little argued she was more qualified for a Human Resources position than the selectee, noting she had a slightly higher candidate score. The judge dismissed this, noting that a score difference of 0.07 points was negligible and that courts do not function as a “super-personnel department” to micromanage business decisions.
The lawsuit also alleged retaliation after a private firm, Bravo Consulting Group, rescinded a job offer to Little in 2021. Little claimed the offer was pulled because a former FBI diversity officer gave a negative reference to a contact at the CIA, who then warned the consulting firm.
READ: ‘This Ain’t About That’: Minneapolis Mayor Clashes With Fox News Over ‘Chaos’ Of Historic ICE Surge
Judge Friedrich ruled that even if the negative reference was given out of frustration or personal dislike, personal animus does not violate Title VII civil rights laws unless it is rooted in race or sex discrimination.
A key element of Little’s retaliation claim rested on a 2019 “All Hands” meeting where she publicly asked FBI Director Christopher Wray about the priority of diversity and inclusion. Little argued this was a protected activity that led to professional blowback.
The court disagreed, ruling that asking a general question about diversity—without alleging actual illegal discrimination—does not legally protect an employee from adverse actions.
“While no ‘magic words’ are required, the complaint must in some way allege unlawful discrimination, not just frustrated ambition,” Friedrich wrote, citing D.C. Circuit precedent.
Little also attempted to use statistical data showing broader racial disparities within the FBI to support her case. The court rejected this evidence as too general, stating that a broad look at workforce demographics was insufficient to prove that specific hiring managers discriminated against Little in these specific instances.
The case, Little v. Garland, was closed following the Tuesday ruling.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
