The employer's offer letter, affidavits, and payroll records sealed the win – here's what HR can learn
A nonprofit CEO lost his security clearance, then his job – and a federal court just ruled his employer did nothing wrong.
On March 30, 2026, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. handed down a decisive win for the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) in an employment discrimination and wage theft lawsuit brought by its former President and CEO, Amir Clayton Powell.
Powell, an African American male, joined NIBS in September 2022. His signed offer letter made one thing clear: the role required a Secret Level security clearance. He obtained an interim clearance in January 2023, but by July of that year, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency pulled it. He never got it back. The NIBS Board voted to terminate him on August 10, 2023, and his employment ended four days later.
Powell sued, alleging that NIBS used the clearance issue as a cover for race-based discrimination. His main argument rested on a comparison with his predecessor and successor in the role – Steven Ayers, a white male – who Powell claimed did not hold a security clearance while serving as NIBS President and CEO.
NIBS dismantled that argument with affidavits. Ayers himself attested that he held a Top Secret clearance throughout his time at NIBS. A specialist from DCSA confirmed that Ayers had maintained that clearance continuously since at least 2005, without revocation or modification. When Powell shifted his argument – suggesting that even if Ayers had a clearance, it was not properly affiliated with NIBS – the organization produced further affidavits confirming proper affiliation during both of Ayers's tenures.
Powell offered no evidence to counter any of it.
The wage theft claim followed a similar path. NIBS showed that Powell received a wire transfer covering all owed wages and unused vacation pay on August 15, 2023 – one day after termination, well within the timeline required under D.C. law. Powell did not dispute this.
The severance question was more nuanced. Powell's offer letter entitled him to three months of severance, but only if he was terminated without good cause. The court found that failing to obtain and maintain a required security clearance qualified as cause, and Powell had never contested that point.
One detail stood out. In a declaration from NIBS's own Chief Human Resources Officer, filed as part of Powell's opposition, she recounted that the Acting CEO told her the day after Powell's termination that "they are trying to find cause" and would not be paying severance. Powell argued this proved NIBS lacked a legitimate reason to fire him. The court disagreed. It found the statement too vague, noting it appeared to be double hearsay, the identity of "they" was never revealed, and it was not shown that the Acting CEO had authority to speak on behalf of the Board that made the termination decision. The court added that there is nothing inappropriate about an employer assessing whether an at-will employee's termination met contractual "for cause" standards to determine whether a severance payment must be made.
Powell also asked for more time to conduct depositions, but the court denied that request too, finding that the information he wanted was already in the record.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich granted summary judgment to NIBS on both remaining counts – disparate treatment under the D.C. Human Rights Act and wage theft under the D.C. Wage Payment and Wage Collection Law.
For HR professionals, the case is a reminder that clearly documented employment conditions matter. Powell signed an offer letter that spelled out the security clearance requirement. NIBS enforced that requirement consistently and backed up its position with evidence when challenged. The employer's record-keeping – from the offer letter to payroll records to wire transfer confirmations – proved decisive.
It also underscores how comparator arguments can fall apart. Powell's claim hinged on the idea that a white predecessor was treated differently, but when the employer produced direct evidence showing that predecessor held a valid, affiliated clearance throughout his employment, Powell had no rebuttal.
The "trying to find cause" statement from the CHRO's declaration is perhaps the most cautionary element. Internal conversations about whether a termination qualifies as "for cause" are not unusual – employers routinely assess severance obligations after a separation. But this case shows how those statements can surface in litigation. HR leaders should be mindful of how termination-related communications are framed, even informally, because they may end up in a courtroom.
