Court Opinion

ID: 9400722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 00:00:50.375696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.538440
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60408        Document: 00516779340             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                     June 8, 2023
                                      No. 22-60408                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   Lavonda Hart

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellee.

                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:21-CV-713
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Lavonda Hart, a black woman, brought a Title VII failure-to-promote
   suit against her employer, the Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation
   Services (the “Department”), after it appointed one of her colleagues, a
   white male, to a newly created position. The district court granted summary
   judgment for the Department because Hart failed to demonstrate a prima

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60408      Document: 00516779340             Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                   No. 22-60408

   facie case of racial discrimination and, alternatively, because she failed to
   produce      evidence   supporting   a        finding   that   the   Department’s
   nondiscriminatory reasons for promoting another candidate were pretextual.
   We affirm.
                                            I.
          Hart has worked at the Department for thirty-five years, holding
   several positions and receiving promotions multiple times. Most recently,
   she was appointed to her current job as Director of Vocational Rehabilitation,
   a noncompetitive position that was not advertised for hiring. In 2019, the
   Department created the new role of Director of Workforce Programs and
   appointed Ken Bishop, a white man. At the time of his appointment, Bishop
   had nearly thirty years of experience and numerous promotions to managerial
   roles. The Department appointed Bishop because he was qualified and would
   bring “a fresh vision to the workforce programs.”
          The Director of Workforce Programs position is a “nonstate service”
   position, as defined by § 25-9-107 of the Mississippi Code, and not subject to
   Mississippi State Personnel Board’s advertising requirements. As such, state
   law authorizes the agency’s Executive Director to appoint the position
   without advertising the job opening. See Miss. Code Ann. § 25-9-
   107(c)(xvi). As a result, Hart did not know about or apply for the new
   position.
          Following Bishop’s appointment, Hart filed a charge with the EEOC,
   claiming race and sex discrimination. In September 2020, the EEOC issued
   her a right-to-sue notice. About a month later, two other Department
   employees sued the Department under Title VII and Section 1981 and added
   Hart’s claims in an amended complaint. The district court dismissed several

                                            2
Case: 22-60408         Document: 00516779340               Page: 3      Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                          No. 22-60408

   claims in the complaint and eventually severed Hart’s claims under Title VII
   and Section 1981 from her co-plaintiff’s claims. 1
           After discovery, the Department moved for summary judgment
   against Hart. In response, Hart abandoned her Section 1981 claims. The
   district court subsequently granted summary judgment dismissing Hart’s
   remaining Title VII claims.
                                                II.
           We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same
   standards as the district court. In re Louisiana Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d
   456, 462 (5th Cir. 2017); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
                                               III.
           Title VII failure-to-promote claims are evaluated under the McDonnell
   Douglas burden-shifting framework. See Davis v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit,
   383 F.3d 309, 316–17 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
   Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). A plaintiff first must demonstrate a prima
   facie case by offering evidence that she (1) “is the member of a protected
   class”; (2) “sought and was qualified for the position”; (3) “was rejected”;
   and (4) was passed over by the employer so it could promote, hire, or
   continue to seek a person in a non-protected class. Id. at 317. If the plaintiff
   makes a prima facie case, the defendant must offer a legitimate
   nondiscriminatory reason for promoting the non-protected employee. Ibid. If
   the defendant does so, the plaintiff must then “produce substantial evidence
   indicating that the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext
   for discrimination.” Outley v. Luke & Assocs. Inc., 840 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir.

           _____________________
           1
             Panels of our court have since affirmed summary judgments against Hart’s (now-
   severed) co-plaintiffs in unpublished decisions. See Gray v. Miss. Dep’t of Rehab. Servs., No.
   22-60411, 2023 WL 119636 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023); Gathings v. Miss. Dep’t of Rehab. Servs.,
   No. 22-60405, 2023 WL 2327460 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2023); Laury v. Miss. Dep’t of Rehab.
   Servs., 2023 WL 3073267 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023).

                                                 3
Case: 22-60408        Document: 00516779340              Page: 4      Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                         No. 22-60408

   2016). Here, the Department wins on either the first or third part of the test,
   each of which is sufficient to affirm the district court’s ruling.
           First, Hart failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination.
   Plaintiffs must usually show they applied for the position in question, but not
   always. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 351 F.3d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 2003). “For
   instance, an employee does not need to apply to establish a prima facie case
   when the position was not publicized. Instead, the employee must show that
   the company had a duty or reason to consider her for the position.” Ibid.
   Here, it is undisputed that the Director of Workforce Programs position was
   not advertised. So, Hart need only show that the Department had a reason or
   duty to consider her for that role.
           Our recent decision in Gathings shows why Hart cannot do so. 2 One
   of Hart’s co-workers, Gathings, alleged that the Department discriminated
   against her by not appointing her as its Director of Client Services, another
   unadvertised position. Gathings v. Miss. Dep’t of Rehab. Servs., No. 22-60405,
   2023 WL 2327460, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2023). Similar to Hart in this case,
   Gathings argued that “the Department concealed the job opening from her
   by failing to advertise the job, that she was exceptionally well qualified for the
   role, and that, regardless, she could not have communicated interest in a
   position she did not know was available at the time.” Id. at *2. We disagreed,
   explaining that “the Department’s failure to seek candidates for an
   appointed, policymaking, non-competitive, non-civil service position is not a
   reason it had to consider [Gathings] as a candidate.” Ibid. So, the evidence
   that Gathings was not considered for the position “alone does not suggest
   any form of racial discrimination.” Ibid.

           _____________________
           2
             Gathings is unpublished and so nonprecedential. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. But it is
   similar to this case (indeed Hart’s claims were once part of the complaint in Gathings), so
   it provides helpful guidance.

                                               4
Case: 22-60408      Document: 00516779340           Page: 5    Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                     No. 22-60408

          So too here. Like Gathings, Hart points only to evidence that she was
   not considered for an appointed governmental position. That evidence alone
   does not satisfy Hart’s burden to show that the company had a duty or reason
   to consider her for the position. See Johnson, 351 F.3d at 622; Gathings, 2023
   WL 2327460 at *2. Accordingly, Hart has not made a prima facie case.
          But even had Hart done so, she also fails to satisfy the third part of the
   McDonnell Douglas test. That requires Hart to produce substantial evidence
   that the Department’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for promoting
   Bishop is pretextual. Outley, 840 F.3d at 216. But Hart produced no evidence
   at all on that point. Instead, she argues only that the district court erred by
   placing on her the burden to show pretext at the summary judgment stage.
   That argument, however, is “clearly foreclosed by both Supreme Court and
   circuit precedent.” Laury v. Miss. Dep’t of Rehab. Servs., No. 22-60407, 2023
   WL 3073267, at *2 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez,
   540 U.S. 44, 49 n.3 (2003); Alvarado v. Texas Rangers, 492 F.3d 605, 611 (5th
   Cir. 2007); Gray Miss. Dep’t of Rehab. Servs., No. 22-60411, 2023 WL
   119636, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023)).
                                                                   AFFIRMED.

                                             5