Clincy v. TransUnion LLC
684 F. App'x 680
10th Cir.2017Background
- Anthony Clincy, an African-American sales rep at TransUnion since 1993, was terminated in Jan. 2010 for violating the company Code of Business Conduct after redirecting revenue by changing customer “codes.”
- TransUnion assigns accounts codes (CS vs. Field) that determine which unit/sales rep receives commissions; mid-year code changes require agreement and follow specific procedures.
- In 2009–2010 Clincy arranged Field codes and instructed his assistant to cancel CS codes and add his Field code for two accounts (Amp Alarm and Elite Home Security), actions that diverted revenue to him.
- Management investigated, found he had not followed procedures, and after an interview in which Clincy admitted wrongdoing (and said he would not have acted if he knew revenue was large), TransUnion terminated him for ethics violations.
- Clincy sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race discrimination (he claimed TransUnion used the ethics violation as a pretext because he was the only Black sales rep); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Clincy appealed.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Clincy failed to establish a prima facie case because he did not show circumstances giving rise to an inference of race discrimination or identify similarly situated comparators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clincy established a prima facie § 1981 discrimination claim | Clincy: termination was racially motivated; he was TransUnion’s only Black sales rep and was the only person disciplined for the code changes | TransUnion: termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons—ethical/code violations supported by investigation and admissions | Held: No. Clincy failed to prove the third McDonnell Douglas element (inference of discrimination); summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether statistical or workplace evidence supports an inference of discrimination | Clincy: claimed lack of racial diversity (only Black in 500-person sales force) implies discrimination | TransUnion: absence of tailored statistical evidence and no link between overall workforce makeup and termination decision | Held: Court: generalized diversity claim unsupported; statistics must be closely related to the issue and none were offered |
| Whether similarly situated comparators were treated differently | Clincy: coworkers (assistant and a supervisor) participated in code changes but were not terminated | TransUnion: those coworkers had different supervisors, roles, and circumstances; Clincy directed the changes and alone benefited financially | Held: Court: comparators were not similarly situated and their conduct was not shown to be of comparable seriousness |
| Whether procedural briefing failures warranted judgment | Defendants: Clincy failed to meaningfully respond to summary judgment motion per local and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 | Clincy: (implicitly) argued merits despite sparse briefing | Held: Court noted inadequate briefing as independent basis to grant summary judgment, but also ruled on merits and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., 703 F.3d 497 (10th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standards and McDonnell Douglas application)
- Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff’s burden to establish prima facie case by preponderance)
- Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co., 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009) (statistical evidence must be closely related to the issue)
- McGowan v. City of Eufala, 472 F.3d 736 (10th Cir. 2006) (standards for identifying similarly situated employees)