David Standley v. Michael Rogers
680 F. App'x 326
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- David W. Standley, a former NSA employee, sued Michael Rogers (NSA Director) under Title VII for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for Rogers on all claims.
- Standley appealed only the race-discrimination and retaliation dismissals; he did not brief the hostile-work-environment claim and thus waived that issue on appeal.
- No direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation was presented; the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence.
- For race discrimination, the critical disputed prima facie element was whether Standley showed a similarly situated employee was treated more favorably; Standley conceded he did not meet the Fifth Circuit standard and sought a change in that standard.
- For retaliation, the key dispute was whether Standley offered substantial evidence of the required but-for causal link between his protected activity and the adverse employment actions; the district court found only speculation, not substantial evidence.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Rogers on both appealed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Standley established a prima facie race-discrimination claim (similarly situated comparator) | Standley argued the court should modify the Fifth Circuit's similarly-situated standard or that he met the standard | Rogers argued Standley failed to present evidence of a similarly situated employee and conceded he did not meet the circuit standard | Court held Standley failed to establish the fourth prima facie element; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Standley established a prima facie retaliation claim (causal link) | Standley relied on his subjective belief and speculative inference that protected activity caused adverse actions | Rogers argued there was no substantial evidence of but-for causation linking protected activity to adverse actions | Court held Standley failed to show but-for causation; speculation insufficient; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the hostile-work-environment claim survives appeal | Standley did not brief the issue on appeal | Rogers relied on waiver | Court deemed the claim waived on appeal |
| Whether this panel may alter circuit precedent on comparator standard | Standley asked for modification of the similarly-situated standard | Rogers relied on binding Fifth Circuit precedent | Court declined to modify precedent; one panel cannot overrule another absent intervening law |
Key Cases Cited
- Fennell v. Marion Indep. Sch. Dist., 804 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2015) (summary-judgment standard review)
- Cuadra v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808 (5th Cir. 2010) (viewing evidence favorably to nonmovant on summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial Title VII claims)
- Wheat v. Fla. Par. Juvenile Justice Comm’n, 811 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 2016) (elements of retaliation prima facie case)
- Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2013) (similar comparator and summary-judgment discussion)
- Rogers v. Pearland Indep. Sch. Dist., 827 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2016) (pretext and McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation required for Title VII retaliation)