Crystal Anderson v. LA Dept of Trans & Development ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-30253     Document: 00515662985          Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                           United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 7, 2020
    No. 20-30253
    Summary Calendar                     Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Crystal A. Anderson,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Louisiana Department of Transportation and
    Development,
    Defendant—Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 5:17-CV-1597
    Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Crystal Anderson was fired after she complained of her supervisor’s
    alleged racist and sexist behavior to his superior at the Louisiana Department
    of Transportation and Development.           The district court granted the
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 20-30253      Document: 00515662985          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    No. 20-30253
    Department’s motion for summary judgment because Anderson failed to
    point to a material fact supporting her allegation that she engaged in a
    protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. We REVERSE
    and REMAND to the district court.
    I.
    We set forth the facts as alleged by the plaintiff. Anderson worked for
    the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development from 2012–
    2016. She was the only female on her crew, and one of only two African-
    American individuals. As part of a bridge crew, Anderson worked four days
    a week for ten hours per day. Bridge workers would have Fridays off, unless
    they wanted to work overtime for extra money. Anderson tended to use her
    Fridays for doctor’s visits.
    On Friday, March 18, 2016, Anderson had a doctor’s appointment
    scheduled. Her supervisor, Dennis Rushing, told her she would need to
    come in to work overtime. Anderson informed Rushing of her appointment,
    and Rushing told her she need not come in. Later that night, however,
    Rushing called Anderson and informed her that she would have to provide a
    doctor’s note when she returned on Monday.
    Anderson asked another co-worker who was also taking that Friday off
    whether he had been told to bring in such a note. The co-worker, who was a
    white male, said he had not been required to provide any documentation.
    Anderson asked Rushing about the disparity but did not receive a satisfactory
    response. She called Rushing’s supervisor, Joshua Bedgood, to ask why she,
    an African-American, was required to provide a doctor’s note when her
    white, male co-worker was not. Bedgood said he would get back to her. On
    Monday, Bedgood told Anderson that the difference was that Anderson had
    actually seen a doctor, whereas her co-worker was merely taking his girlfriend
    in for her appointment.
    2
    Case: 20-30253      Document: 00515662985          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    No. 20-30253
    After that, Anderson claims that it became apparent that Rushing
    wanted her dismissed from the Department. She alleges that Rushing told a
    co-worker that he wanted Anderson “out of here,” that he refused to work
    an extra shift if Anderson and the other African-American employee would
    be the only others on the shift, and that he indicated on another occasion that
    he hoped to be able to fire her. Anderson alleges that Rushing always
    assigned her to drive the only vehicle without working air conditioning and
    assigned her to drive with James Bison, who was not permitted to drive.
    In May of 2016, Anderson claims that Rushing instructed her and
    Bison to work on a project a short way away from the main project her crew
    was working on. When they had finished, Rushing allegedly instructed them
    to ride around and wait for him to call them back to the main project. When
    Anderson and Bison finished their project, they went to Lake Ivan to eat
    lunch. After arriving, Rushing called to ask where they were and berated
    them for taking so long to return. He told them that they would be written
    up, but he never formally did so.
    A few days later, Anderson and Bison were called into the office to
    meet with Rushing, Bedgood, and another supervisor, John Rawling.
    Rawling accused Anderson and Bison of stealing time from the State by riding
    around and not working. Anderson objected that she was only obeying
    Rushing’s instructions, but she was told that her excuses were insufficient.
    She could either resign on her own or face termination and potential criminal
    charges. She chose to resign.
    After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Anderson
    brought the present suit alleging that the Department violated Title VII of
    the Civil Rights Act by creating a hostile work environment and by firing her
    for reporting Rushing’s discrimination to Bedgood. She argues that the
    reason the Department gave for her termination was pretextual. According
    3
    Case: 20-30253      Document: 00515662985          Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    No. 20-30253
    to her, Rushing discriminated against her because she is African-American
    and female, and she was fired for reporting his discrimination to Bedgood.
    She seeks back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and other litigation
    expenses.
    The Department moved for summary judgment in this case, arguing
    that Anderson had failed to provide evidence of a Title VII violation. The
    district court granted the motion, determining that (1) Anderson had not
    demonstrated that she had experienced harassment based on race or sex and
    (2) Anderson had not pointed to any evidence suggesting that she engaged in
    a protected activity under Title VII.
    II.
    We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
    Petro Harvester Operating Co., LLC v. Keith, 
    954 F.3d 686
    , 691 (5th Cir.
    2020). “Summary judgment is appropriate when ‘the movant shows that
    there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
    to judgment as a matter of law.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting United States v. Nature’s Way
    Marine, LLC, 
    904 F.3d 416
    , 419 (5th Cir. 2018)). “A fact is ‘material’ if,
    under the applicable substantive law, ‘its resolution could affect the outcome
    of the action.’” Patel v. Tex. Tech Univ., 
    941 F.3d 743
    , 747 (5th Cir. 2019)
    (quoting Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 
    627 F.3d 134
    ,
    138 (5th Cir. 2010)).
    Although Anderson initially brought both a hostile-work-environment
    claim and a retaliation claim in the district court, her brief before this court
    focuses solely on her retaliation claim. Her hostile-work-environment claim
    is therefore forfeited. See United States v. Zuniga, 
    860 F.3d 276
    , 284 n.9 (5th
    Cir. 2018). We consider only Anderson’s retaliation claim in this appeal.
    The question is whether Anderson has shown that there exists a
    genuine dispute of a material fact regarding her retaliation claim. To succeed
    4
    Case: 20-30253      Document: 00515662985           Page: 5     Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    No. 20-30253
    on a Title VII retaliation claim, the plaintiff must first establish that: (1) she
    engaged in a protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment
    action; and (3) there was a causal connection between her protected activity
    and the adverse employment action. Harville v. City of Houston, 
    945 F.3d 870
    , 879 (5th Cir. 2017). Once a prima facie case has been made out, the
    burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate reason for its actions.
    See 
    id.
     at 874–75. If such a reason is provided, then the plaintiff bears the
    final burden of establishing that the defendant’s reason was pretextual. See
    
    id.
    The district court concluded that Anderson had failed to establish a
    prima facie case of retaliation because she had not shown that she engaged in
    an activity protected by Title VII. We disagree.
    An employee engages in a protected activity under Title VII when she
    has “(1) ‘opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice’ by
    Title VII or (2) ‘made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
    manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing’ under Title VII.”
    Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 
    144 F.3d 364
    , 372 (5th
    Cir. 1998) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a)).
    Anderson argues that she did oppose an unlawful practice when she
    called Bedgood about Rushing’s requirement that she, but not her white,
    male co-worker, provide a doctor’s note for her Friday absence. The
    Department contends that this was nothing more than a call to clarify the
    Department’s policy regarding leave time. The contents of that discussion
    are material to Anderson’s claim. If Anderson did complain to Bedgood in
    that phone call, then that would qualify as opposition to Rushing’s unlawful
    discriminatory practices. See Hagan v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 
    529 F.3d 617
    ,
    626 (5th Cir. 2008).
    5
    Case: 20-30253      Document: 00515662985           Page: 6    Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    No. 20-30253
    Although the Department argues otherwise, the record before the
    district court establishes that the contents of that call are disputed.
    Anderson’s complaint, which is certified and therefore qualifies as
    competent summary judgment evidence, contains her testimony that she
    called to inquire why she was being treated differently than her white, male
    co-worker. See Hart v. Hairston, 
    343 F.3d 762
    , 765 (5th Cir. 2003). This
    directly contradicts what the Department’s proffered evidence suggests.
    Because this fact was in dispute, summary judgment on this point was
    inappropriate.
    The Department contends further that Anderson presented no
    evidence that she had suffered an adverse employment action because she
    resigned of her own volition. Anderson contradicts this, however, with her
    own affidavit that she was forced to resign at the meeting where she was
    disciplined for “riding the roads” when her supervisor allegedly instructed
    her to do just that. If the facts alleged there are true, Anderson’s forced
    resignation could amount to a constructive discharge. See Pa. State Police v.
    Suders, 
    542 U.S. 129
    , 142–43 (2004). She has therefore presented evidence
    giving rise to a genuine dispute of material fact.
    Anderson has also presented evidence that, if believed by a jury, could
    establish the necessary “causal connection” through the proximity in time of
    her complaint to Bedgood and her allegedly forced resignation. We have
    previously held that a “two-and-one-half month period” was sufficient to
    establish causation, and Anderson’s allegation of a less-than-two-month
    period “fits comfortably within” that boundary. Garcia v. Pro. Cont. Servs.,
    Inc., 
    938 F.3d 236
    , 243 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, a dispute of material facts exists
    regarding this third element of Anderson’s prima facie case.
    Finally, Anderson has presented evidence that a factual dispute exists
    regarding the validity of the reason the Department provided for her
    6
    Case: 20-30253      Document: 00515662985           Page: 7     Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    No. 20-30253
    termination.    After a plaintiff has made out her prima facie case, the
    defendant must provide a legitimate reason for their actions. If it does so, the
    burden falls on the plaintiff to provide evidence that the reason was really a
    pretext for retaliation. Id. at 241. At the pretext stage, the plaintiff must show
    “but-for causation, which requires more than mere temporal proximity.” Id.
    at 244. It requires the plaintiff to show that “the adverse action would not
    have occurred ‘but for’ the employer’s retaliatory motive.” Feist v. La. Dep’t
    of J., 
    730 F.3d 450
    , 454 (5th Cir. 2013).
    Although the Department provides a legitimate, non-discriminatory
    reason for pressuring Anderson into resigning, Anderson argues that the
    reason is pretextual. There is a real dispute of material fact on this point.
    Although the temporal proximity would be insufficient to withstand
    summary judgment on the pretext analysis, Anderson points to “evidence
    beyond temporal proximity to create a genuine issue of material fact about
    pretext.” Garcia, 938 F.3d at 244. Anderson presents evidence suggesting
    that she would not have been forced to resign had she not reported Rushing’s
    behavior to Bedgood because: (1) there was temporal proximity between her
    report to Bedgood and her resignation; (2) other employees engaged in
    similar behavior without reprimand; (3) the Department failed to follow its
    own disciplinary protocol in reprimanding her; and (4) Rushing harassed
    Anderson after she reported his behavior to Bedgood. This evidence gives
    rise to a dispute of material fact. The Department was not entitled to
    summary judgment in this case.
    III.
    We therefore REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this
    opinion.
    7