Davis v. Dallas Independent School District
448 F. App'x 485
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Davis, an African-American female, worked for DISD starting Dec 9, 2005 as an investigator in the HR Investigation Department.
- In 2007 DISD created the OPR Department and merged it with HR; Davis, as an HR investigator, could pursue promotion to Level VI Senior Investigator pending performance standards.
- Davis sought the OPR Inspector position but alleges Smith discouraged her and that the requirements were lowered for a white male friend; she lacked the required security clearance.
- In early 2008, Davis accepted/declined the OPR Child Abuse Coordinator promotion due to pay incentives; a conflict over responsibilities followed a meeting where she objected to tasks assigned.
- Davis was eventually non-renewed on Aug 29, 2008 (effective Aug 31, 2008) after a series of investigations and disciplinary considerations; she filed seven grievances alleging discrimination and retaliation.
- Davis asserted Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, and due process claims; the district court granted summary judgment, which this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination: failure to promote based on race or gender | Davis contends promotions were denied due to race/gender. | Davis was not qualified for OPR Inspector (lacked security clearance). | Prima facie not shown; summary judgment proper. |
| Retaliation: protected activity and causal link | Davis engaged in protected activity and faced adverse actions. | Protected activity not established (April 15 hostile environment claim) and causation not shown. | Protected activity not established; no viable causation; retaliation claim properly dismissed. |
| Due Process: property interest in continued employment | Davis had a property interest in employment and due process rights were violated. | No property interest created by state law; leave did not constitute deprivation. | No cognizable property interest; due process claim properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes framework for discrimination claims)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (pretext standard in discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (ultimate burden on plaintiff to prove intentional discrimination)
- Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 1999) (temporal proximity not sufficient where protected activity precedes action)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (U.S. 2009) (disparate-impact theory requires statistical disparity showing)
- Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2000) (statistical proof key to disparate impact claims)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1988) (statistical disparity framework for disparate impact)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation/adverse action standards post-Burlington)
- Lauderdale v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, Institutional Div., 512 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2007) (parallel Title VII and §1981/§1983 analyses for discrimination)