Davis v. Unified School District 500
750 F.3d 1168
10th Cir.2014Background
- Charles Davis, a custodian with USD 500 since 1991, was suspended 30 days and demoted in 2007 after being found sunbathing naked on his employer’s elementary-school roof.
- From 2008–2012 Davis applied for seven head-custodian openings within USD 500 and was not hired for any.
- Davis filed multiple EEOC charges (2008, 2010, 2011) alleging racial discrimination and later retaliation; in 2012 he sued USD 500 and HR Director Stephen Vaughn alleging retaliation under Title VII and § 1981 and an FLSA overtime claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for USD 500 and Vaughn; Davis appealed only the retaliation claims (he waived challenge to the FLSA ruling).
- Hiring process: HR posts vacancies, screens applicants and forwards qualified applicants to building principals and the Buildings & Grounds coordinator (Herbin); principals make the hire decisions in practice; Vaughn/HR do not make final promotion decisions.
- Davis alleged Vaughn failed to refer his applications for two postings and that USD 500 systematically retaliated by passing him over for promotions; the district court found no admissible evidence of adverse actions or causal connection and granted summary judgment, affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Davis' Argument | USD 500 / Vaughn's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vaughn took adverse action by failing to refer Davis for specific vacancies | Vaughn omitted Davis from referral lists for two head-custodian openings, which was an adverse employment action | Vaughn presented evidence he submitted Davis' name (computer printout for one; HR status notes for the other) and had no role in final hiring | No adverse action shown as to Vaughn; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Vaughn’s alleged failure to investigate other applicants constituted an adverse action | Vaughn failed to investigate qualifications of successful applicants, harming Davis' chance | HR's role was only to ensure applicants were minimally qualified; Vaughn did not rank or select hires | Not an adverse employment action; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether USD 500 retaliated by repeatedly passing Davis over for promotions (causation/common purpose) | The sheer number (seven) of failed promotions permits an inference of a common retaliatory purpose or but-for causation | Each school principal independently made hiring decisions; no evidence of a conspiracy, common supervisor, or that principals knew of Davis' protected activity | Davis failed to prove but-for causation for each discrete denial and showed no concerted motive; summary judgment for USD 500 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Crowe v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 649 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir.) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in employment cases)
- Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir.) (elements of prima facie retaliation case)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (Sup. Ct.) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530 (10th Cir.) (discussing common supervisor/cat’s paw issues)
- Macon v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., 743 F.3d 708 (10th Cir.) (refusal to impute retaliatory motive where independent decisionmakers acted)
- Silverton Snowmobile Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772 (10th Cir.) (issue-waiver for failure to raise issues on appeal)