Opinion ID: 6333968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conversation Between Dean Hamm and Dr. Patel

Text: Dr. Saketkoo’s second allegation of retaliation relates to the conversation in which Dean Hamm allegedly directed Dr. Patel not to hire her. She argues that the Administrators retaliated against her by sabotaging her attempt to secure employment at UMC. Both parties agree that Dr. Saketkoo’s comments during the February 2019 meeting and the OIE investigation that followed were protected activities. And reading the facts in the light most favorable to Dr. Saketkoo, the conversation between Dean Hamm and Dr. Patel was an adverse employment action. This leaves the question of whether 11 Case: 21-30055 Document: 00516289795 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-30055 there was a causal link between the two as required to make a prima facie case of retaliation. “At first glance, the ultimate issue in an unlawful retaliation case— whether the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff because the plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by Title VII—seems identical to the third element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case—whether a causal link exists between the adverse employment action and the protected activity.” Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300, 305 n.4 (5th Cir. 1996) (emphases omitted). “However, the standards of proof applicable to these questions differ significantly.” Id. “The ultimate determination in an unlawful retaliation case is whether the conduct protected by Title VII was a ‘but for’ cause of the adverse employment decision.” Id. “The standard for establishing the ‘causal link’ element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case is much less stringent.” Id. To demonstrate that a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action at the prima facie stage, an employee can show close enough timing between her protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Brown, 969 F.3d at 578. Alternatively, she can show “cat’s paw causation” if a person who has retaliatory animus uses a decisionmaker to bring about an intended retaliatory action. See Gee v. Principi, 289 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 2002). However, here the conversation between Dean Hamm and Dr. Patel was too far removed from the non-renewal 12 Case: 21-30055 Document: 00516289795 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-30055 meeting and the OIE investigation to establish a causal link through time alone. 7 And similarly, there is no evidence in the record that Dr. Lasky brought about the conversation between Dean Hamm and Dr. Patel as is necessary for establishing cat’s paw causation. But this court has also held that an employee can establish a causal link at the prima facie stage when evidence demonstrates that the adverse action was “based in part on knowledge of the employee’s protected activity.” Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674, 684 (5th Cir. 2001). In Medina, we decided that an employee whose manager terminated him and had knowledge about his protected activity met the causal link element of his prima facie case at the summary judgment stage because the evidence demonstrated that the manager’s knowledge was “not wholly unrelated to the termination.” Id. Here, as the district court acknowledged, Dean Hamm was aware of Dr. Saketkoo’s protected activity when he made the decision to speak about her to Dr. Patel. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dr. Saketkoo, such knowledge was “not wholly unrelated” to the alleged direction not to hire her. However, even so, it is clear that she has not created a triable issue of fact as to “[t]he ultimate determination in an unlawful retaliation case,” “whether the conduct protected by Title VII was a ‘but for’ cause of the adverse employment decision.” Long, 88 F.3d at 305 n.4. Because the 7 As the district court explained, we have held that a two-and-a-half month gap is sufficient to show causation, see Garcia v. Pro. Cont. Servs., Inc., 938 F.3d 236, 243 (5th Cir. 2019), and the Supreme Court has suggested that a three-month gap is insufficient. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273–74 (2001) (per curiam). Dr. Patel suggests that he spoke with Dean Hamm at some point after June 2019, and even if the conversation occurred on July 1, 2019, this is too far removed from the February 2019 meeting and the March 2019 instigation of the OIE complaint for temporal proximity to establish a causal link. 13 Case: 21-30055 Document: 00516289795 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-30055 Administrators have carried their burden of production, 8 this court turns to whether Dr. Saketkoo can prove her claim according to traditional principles of “but for” causation and carry her burden of demonstrating that their proffered non-discriminatory reason is pretextual. An employee can establish pretext in the context of retaliation “by showing that a discriminatory motive more likely motivated her employer’s decision.” Brown, 969 F.3d at 577 (quoting Haire v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363 (5th Cir. 2013)). In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show a “conflict in substantial evidence” on this issue. Id. (quoting Musser v. Paul Quinn Coll., 944 F.3d 557, 561 (5th Cir. 2019)). At this juncture, we consider “numerous factors, including the strength of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer’s explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer’s case and that properly may be considered.” Id. (quoting Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 720 (5th Cir. 2002)). “[T]here will be cases where a plaintiff has [] established a prima facie case . . . yet no rational factfinder could conclude that the action was discriminatory.” Id. Here, to survive a motion for summary judgment, Dr. Saketkoo must show a conflict in substantial evidence as to whether Dean Hamm would not have made retaliatory comments to Dr. Patel but for Dr. Saketkoo’s reporting of potentially discriminatory behavior and involvement in an OIE investigation. Yet Dr. Saketkoo only proffers the transcript of her 8 The Administrators disputed that the conversation between Dean Hamm and Dr. Patel constituted an adverse employment action, so they did not discuss additional nondiscriminatory reasons in the context of this claim. However, the performance issues that the Administrators emphasized in their discussion of non-discriminatory reasons for gender discrimination evidently apply. “[E]ven an incorrect belief that an employee’s performance is inadequate constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.” Little v. Republic Refin. Co., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir. 1991). 14 Case: 21-30055 Document: 00516289795 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-30055 surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation with Dr. Patel. And this transcript is itself insufficient to create a conflict in substantial evidence as to whether “a discriminatory motive more likely motivated” Dean Hamm. Id. Dr. Saketkoo’s transcript tells us that Dr. Patel made statements implying Dean Hamm told him not to hire Dr. Saketkoo. There is no question that Dr. Patel made such statements. Indeed, in his affidavit, Dr. Patel expressly acknowledges that he made statements implying Dean Hamm told him not to hire Dr. Saketkoo. But he also clarifies that “Dean Hamm did not at any time tell [him] not to hire Dr. Saketkoo” and that he made the statements of his own volition “because it would not be appropriate . . . for UMC to act contrary to the decisions of Tulane, one of [its] faculty practice partners[,]” by hiring a physician whose employment contract the School did not renew. Crucially, Dr. Saketkoo does not allege that Dr. Patel lied in his affidavit about what Dean Hamm told him in their summer 2019 conversation. If she had made this allegation, reading the evidence in the light most favorable to Dr. Saketkoo, she would be correct that “[Dr.] Patel’s own words” would “clearly raise a disputed issue of material fact” as to what was said and whether a discriminatory motive more likely motivated Dean Hamm. However, Dr. Saketkoo instead alleges that the affidavit demonstrates “what [Dr. Patel] told [her] on the September[] 2019 call was not true.” And this is neither disputed nor material. Dr. Patel acknowledges that he mischaracterized his conversation with Dean Hamm on the phone with Dr. Saketkoo. That Dr. Patel mischaracterized their conversation cannot confer a discriminatory motive on Dean Hamm, let alone support the proposition that Dean Hamm would not have made retaliatory comments but for Dr. Saketkoo’s actions. Although this court has previously held that a “combination of suspi- cious timing with other significant evidence of pretext can be sufficient to 15 Case: 21-30055 Document: 00516289795 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-30055 survive summary judgment in a Title VII retaliation action,” Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398, 409 (5th Cir. 1999), Dr. Saketkoo has failed to produce the significant evidence of pretext necessary for survival. We conclude that a reasonable jury could not establish that her protected conduct was the “but for” cause of the alleged adverse employment action based on the record before us. We therefore affirm summary judgment in favor of the Administrators on Dr. Saketkoo’s retaliation claim.