770 F.Supp.3d 932
N.D. Miss.2025Background
- Plaintiff Reginald Alan Davis, a Siemens employee and U.S. Marine Corps veteran with PTSD, claimed retaliation and disability discrimination following his participation in a sexual harassment investigation against his supervisor, Joseph Lampkins.
- Davis alleged Lampkins retaliated by increasing his workload, assigning menial and punitive tasks, and creating a hostile work environment after Davis testified against him.
- Davis' claims were brought under Title VII (retaliation) and the ADA (disability discrimination and failure to accommodate).
- Defendant Siemens moved for summary judgment, arguing that most alleged adverse actions were outside the statutory 180-day EEOC charge-filing window and/or did not rise to actionable levels under federal law.
- The only potential Title VII violation within the limitations period concerned Lampkins giving Davis an onerous “to do” list with unreasonable, sometimes impossible, tasks and deadlines upon his return from medical leave.
- The court denied summary judgment for both claims, finding factual disputes as to whether Davis experienced actionable retaliation and ADA violations falling within the relevant timelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title VII retaliation | Lampkins’ actions ongoing, with at least one timely act | Only one act (assignment sheet) within limitations period; most claims untimely | Sufficient timely act (assignment sheet) alleged; claim proceeds |
| Retaliation – Material Adversity | Cumulative retaliation, including tasks designed to manufacture a firing, was materially adverse | "To do" list not materially adverse, mere reassignment of tasks | “To do” list was materially adverse; triable issue exists |
| ADA Discrimination/Failure to Accommodate | Sought reasonable accommodation, asked not to be triggered; claimed continued negative treatment | No actionable adverse employment action or failure to accommodate; law requires adverse action | Factual disputes remain under ADA post-Hamilton; claim proceeds |
| Applicability of "Ultimate Employment Decisions" Standard | Discrimination must be evaluated under terms/conditions language (Hamilton) | Old standard requiring "ultimate employment decisions" applies | Hamilton standard governs; broader range of conduct actionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Saketkoo v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 31 F.4th 990 (5th Cir. 2020) (summarizing Title VII retaliation framework)
- Cabral v. Brennan, 853 F.3d 763 (5th Cir. 2017) (prima facie case for retaliation)
- Hamilton v. Dallas Cnty., 79 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (Fifth Circuit adopts lower bar for actionable employment discrimination)
- Hood v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 168 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 1999) (180-day EEOC filing requirement as statute of limitations)
- E.E.O.C. v. Rite Way Serv., Inc., 819 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2016) (Title VII anti-retaliation protected activity defined)