Court Opinion

ID: 9407033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 18:01:33.164357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.985139
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60409         Document: 00516808851             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                       July 5, 2023
                                       No. 22-60409
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________
                                                                                           Clerk

   Kenisha Black,

                                                                     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. 3:20-CV-643
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          The plaintiff is a black woman who alleges she was discriminated
   against on the basis of race when the Mississippi Department of
   Rehabilitation Services appointed a white woman to a director position. The
   district court found that the plaintiff failed to create a fact issue with respect
   to pretext. We agree and AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60409        Document: 00516808851              Page: 2      Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                         No. 22-60409

                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
           Plaintiff-Appellant Kenisha Black began work for the Mississippi
   Department of Rehabilitation Services (“MDRS”) in 2004 as a Counselor
   II. Black resigned in 2006 but was soon rehired by MDRS as a Counselor III.
   In 2013, Black became a Licensed Professional Counselor. In 2015, Black was
   promoted to a District Director position.
           In 2019, MDRS employee Kevin Bishop held the position of Director
   of Client Services. Later that year, Bishop was promoted to be Director of
   Workforce Programs, leaving his previous post vacant.                             Bishop
   recommended to MDRS Executive Director, Chris Howard, that Carol
   Elrod, a white woman, be appointed to his former position. Howard accepted
   the recommendation and appointed Elrod to the position. MDRS did not
   otherwise solicit applications for the opening. 1
           Subsequently, Black filed a discrimination charge against MDRS with
   the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She received her Notice
   of a Right to Sue, then filed a complaint in federal district court. Black alleged
   violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
   MDRS moved for summary judgment.
           In June 2022, the district court granted summary judgment for MDRS
   on all claims. Relevant here, the court concluded that Black failed to establish
   a prima facie case of discrimination. In the alternative, the court found that
   Black failed to create a fact issue as to whether MDRS’s non-discriminatory
   reason for promoting Elrod was pretextual. Black timely appealed.

           _____________________
           1
             The Director of Client Services position is exempt from Mississippi Civil Service
   Law. 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).

                                                   2
Case: 22-60409        Document: 00516808851              Page: 3       Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                         No. 22-60409

                                       DISCUSSION
           We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
   Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baptist, 762 F.3d 447, 449 (5th Cir. 2014).
   Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
   material fact.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). In reviewing the record, “the court
   must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it
   may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v.
   Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). A party cannot
   defeat summary judgment with “conclusional allegations, unsupported
   assertions, or presentation of only a scintilla of evidence.” McFaul v.
   Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Instead, “the nonmovant must
   go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts” that prove a genuine
   issue of material fact exists. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
   Cir. 1994).
           Black does not challenge the dismissal of her Section 1981 claim. She
   argues only that the district court erred by concluding (1) that she failed to
   establish a prima facie case and (2) that she failed to create a fact issue on
   pretext. 2
           Under Title VII, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing
   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). If the plaintiff

           _____________________
           2
             We mention that this court has affirmed summary judgment against several of
   Black’s (now-severed) co-plaintiffs. 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: 22-60409       Document: 00516808851         Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                    No. 22-60409

   makes that showing, the burden shifts to the employer “to proffer a
   legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action,” after which the plaintiff
   must “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. 2016) (quotation marks and citations
   omitted).
            We will assume Black made a prima facie showing. We then examine
   whether she created a fact issue with respect to pretext. MDRS asserts that
   it appointed Elrod as Director of Client Services because she was qualified
   and had a long working history with MDRS. Elrod began working for MDRS
   in 2001, then held various positions, including Evaluator II, Counselor III,
   and District Manager. In 2013, Elrod transitioned to work as a Program
   Coordinator for Mississippi’s Alcohol and Drug Test Services.
            As to pretext, Black first argues that she and Elrod have different
   qualifications. We agree with the district court’s fact-finding that there is no
   meaningful difference between their qualifications. Both hold master’s
   degrees and have long career histories with MDRS. Black failed to offer
   evidence from which a factfinder could infer that she was “clearly better
   qualified” than Elrod. See Price v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir.
   2002).
            Black also says pretext cannot be decided in this case on summary
   judgment because Bishop and Howard’s “state[s] of mind” with respect to
   filling the job opening are disputed fact issues. Because this argument was
   not presented to the district court, it was forfeited. See Rollins v. Home Depot
   USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021).
            Even considering this argument about state-of-mind, a plaintiff must
   show that her employer’s decision was “more likely motivated” by
   discrimination, or that the employer’s “explanation is unworthy of

                                              4
Case: 22-60409     Document: 00516808851          Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                   No. 22-60409

   credence.” Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212, 220 (5th Cir. 2001)
   (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[P]retext cannot be established by
   mere conclusory statements of a plaintiff who feels [s]he has been
   discriminated against.” EEOC v. Exxon Shipping Co., 745 F.2d 967, 976 (5th
   Cir. 1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted).            Here, Black’s
   unsupported allegations regarding states of mind are insufficient to create a
   fact issue. Further, Black has not identified any evidence suggesting that
   Bishop’s or Howard’s decisions were racially motivated.
          Because Black failed to create a genuine issue of material fact
   regarding pretext, we AFFIRM.

                                            5