Allen Thompson v. City of Waco, Texas
764 F.3d 500
5th Cir.2014Background
- Allen Thompson, an African American detective with the Waco Police Department, was suspended with two white detectives over alleged falsified time sheets, then reinstated.
- After reinstatement, Waco imposed written restrictions on Thompson not applied to the two white detectives: he could not search for evidence without supervision, log evidence, work undercover, be an affiant, serve as evidence officer at a crime scene, or be the lead investigator.
- Thompson alleges these restrictions stripped him of integral detective duties, left him functioning as an assistant rather than a full detective, diminished prestige and advancement prospects, and reduced use of his skills.
- District court dismissed his § 1981 and Title VII claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege an adverse employment action (no change in title, pay, or benefits).
- Fifth Circuit majority reversed, finding Thompson plausibly alleged the functional equivalent of a demotion; remanded for further proceedings.
- Judge Jerry E. Smith dissented, arguing Fifth Circuit precedent requires an "ultimate" employment decision (hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, etc.) and that mere loss of duties without transfer, title, or pay change does not suffice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson alleged an "adverse employment action" under Title VII and § 1981 | Thompson: restrictions removed essential detective duties and are the equivalent of a demotion — objectively worse, less prestigious, less interesting, fewer advancement opportunities | City: only loss of duties without change in title, pay, or benefits; courts should not treat rewritten job descriptions as transfers/demotions | Majority: Reversed — allegations plausibly show an equivalent of a demotion; adverse action pleaded; remand for further proceedings |
| Proper standard to evaluate loss-of-duty claims | Thompson: a significant diminution of material responsibilities can be an adverse action even without pay/title change (aligning with transfer/demotion cases) | City: Fifth Circuit requires an "ultimate" employment decision; mere restriction of duties insufficient | Majority: Accepts that materially diminished responsibilities can constitute demotion-equivalent; dissent disagrees and urges strict "ultimate decision" standard |
| Role of Alvarado and transfer cases in loss-of-duty context | Thompson: Alvarado and related transfer cases support treating objectively worse positions or restricted duties as demotions | City: Alvarado involves transfers to different positions; here Thompson remained in same post — distinction matters | Majority: Rejects formalistic distinction; functional change can be actionable. Dissent: Alvarado should be limited to transfer contexts |
| Pleading standard at Rule 12(b)(6) for adverse employment action | Thompson: factual allegations about duties, prestige, advancement, and skill use suffice to plausibly plead adverse action | City: plaintiff must plead an "ultimate" employment action; conclusory assertions insufficient | Held: Court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility review and finds Thompson's factual allegations adequate to survive dismissal (majority); dissent would affirm dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir.) (actions constituting "ultimate" employment decisions)
- Alvarado v. Tex. Rangers, 492 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2007) (transfer may be equivalent to demotion if new position is objectively worse)
- Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2004) (adverse employment actions must affect terms/conditions of employment)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (scope of Title VII limited to actions affecting employment or workplace conditions)
- Sharp v. City of Houston, 164 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1999) (transfer could be viewed as demotion)
- Forsyth v. City of Dallas, 91 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 1996) (reassignment from Intelligence Unit to night patrol recognized as demotion)
- Click v. Copeland, 970 F.2d 106 (5th Cir.) (transfer to clearly different job duties treated as demotion)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading standards in employment discrimination; prima facie elements not rigid pleading requirement)
- Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2001) (loss of some duties insufficient where duties were not integral to overall job)