Court Opinion

ID: 9376550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 01:00:33.688224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.519178
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60405      Document: 00516664224             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/02/2023

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

                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                   March 2, 2023
                                    No. 22-60405                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                  Summary Calendar                                      Clerk

   Shondra Gathings,

                                                                 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-709

   Before Clement, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Shondra Gathings alleges that her employer, the Mississippi
   Department of Rehabilitation Services, discriminated against her by not
   appointing her as its Director of Client Services. The district court granted
   summary judgment because Gathings failed to demonstrate a prima facie case
   in which she suffered from racial discrimination. We AFFIRM.

          *This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60405       Document: 00516664224         Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/02/2023

                                    No. 22-60405

                                          I
          The Department hired Gathings, an African American woman, in
   2008. Over the years, she has earned multiple promotions and earned a
   master’s degree. When Gathings resigned from the Department in 2021, she
   served as a District Manager. Gathings demonstrated interest in further
   promotions, applying, but being rejected for, a Regional Director position
   multiple times.
          In July 2019, Kevin Bishop was promoted to Deputy Administrator
   over Workforce Programs, leaving a vacancy in his prior role, Director of
   Client Services. Bishop recommended Carol Elrod—Gathings’ white
   comparator in this litigation—for his old job. Elrod subsequently received her
   promotion to Director of Client Services. Of note, the Director of Client
   Services is an appointed government official, not a member of the state civil
   service. This classification means that the opening was non-competitive and
   did not require public posting, as is usually the case for government
   employment under Mississippi’s job advertising requirements. See Miss.
   Code Ann. § 25-9-107(c)(xvi).
          Gathings filed a complaint with the EEOC, claiming that the
   Department did not promote her to the Director of Client Services position
   because of her race. The U.S. Department of Justice issued a right-to-sue
   letter, and Appellant filed suit with a coworker in federal court seeking relief
   under several race discrimination theories. The district court first dismissed
   all the claims unrelated to Elrod’s promotion to the Director of Client
   Services role. Then, after discovery, it granted the Department’s motion for
   summary judgment. In its order, the district court concluded that Gathings
   could not sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against a state government
   agency, that she failed to establish a prima facie case that she was the victim
   of racial discrimination, or that, in the alternative, Gathings was unable to

                                          2
Case: 22-60405       Document: 00516664224          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/02/2023

                                     No. 22-60405

   show that the Department’s stated reasons for why it did not promote her
   were pretextual. On appeal, Gathings abandons her § 1981 claim and the
   claims the district court dismissed in its order granting the motion to dismiss,
   limiting her challenge to the conclusion that she has failed to demonstrate a
   prima facie case and that any reasons for the alleged discrimination were
   pretextual.
                                         II
            We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
   applying the same standard used by the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of
   Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is
   proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
   movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
   We view the evidence and draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the
   nonmovant; however, “[u]nsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences,
   and unsupported speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for
   summary judgment.” Brown v. City of Hous., 337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir.
   2003).
                                         III
            In suits under Title VII alleging an employer’s failure to hire or
   promote, a plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case by offering evidence
   that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified and applied
   for a position; (3) was rejected; and (4) was passed over by the employer so
   it could promote, hire, or continue to seek a person of a non-protected class.
   McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Burrell v. Dr.
   Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 482 F.3d 408, 412 (5th Cir. 2007).
            The requirement that an employee must apply for the position
            at issue is interpreted to accommodate various situations. For
            instance, an employee does not need to apply to establish a

                                          3
Case: 22-60405      Document: 00516664224           Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/02/2023

                                     No. 22-60405

          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.
   Johnson v. Louisiana, 351 F.3d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 2003).
          It is undisputed that the Director of Client Services position was not
   advertised. Thus, Gathings needs only show that the Department had a
   reason or duty to consider her for that role. The district court found that
   Gathings had failed to provide evidence that such reasons or duties existed.
   Specifically, the court pointed to the absence of any communication between
   Gathings and the Department about her interest in the job. It also found that
   she had not shown any reason she should have expected to be considered for
   the director role.
           Gathings argues 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. These arguments are
   correct insofar as they go. However, we agree with the district court 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 her
   as a candidate. Ultimately, the only evidence Gathings can point to is that she
   did not get considered to be an appointed government official. This alone
   does not suggest any form of racial discrimination.
                                          IV
          Gathings has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that she is the
   victim of racial discrimination. Therefore, we need not address whether the
   state’s explanations for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. We
   AFFIRM.

                                           4