Case Name: Thomas E. ROQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-05
Citations: 583 F. App'x 466
Docket Number: No. 14-30053
Parties: Thomas E. ROQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and AFRICK, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 466–471

Head Matter:
Thomas E. ROQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-30053.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 2014.
Daniel E. Broussard, Jr., Esq., Brous-sard, Halcomb & Vizzier, Alexandria, LA, ■ for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Elmer Gray Noah, II, Hammonds, Sills, Adkins & Guice, L.L.P., Monroe, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and AFRICK, District Judge.
District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas E. Roque appeals the dismissal on summary judgment of his lawsuit alleging claims of race-based discrimination in connection with the selection of a school superintendent. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court, and we construe the evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of Roque. E.g., Boyett v. Redland Ins. Co., 741 F.3d 604, 606 (5th Cir.2014).
The district court concluded that Roque failed to raise a fact dispute at the pretext stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. After reviewing the parties' briefs, oral argument, and the record, including the evidence of Hildebrand's comment that the school district was not ready for a minority superintendent, her alleged influence over the selection process, and her role in reopening the applications period for additional candidates, we conclude that Roque produced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.