Ernest Navy v. College of the Mainland, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9600

Background

Ernest Navy, a Black professor, was hired full-time at College of the Mainland (Mainland) after serving as an adjunct; he applied for tenure in 2007 and was initially denied due to a disorganized tenure file, plagiarism, and other deficiencies, though he ultimately received tenure in December 2009 after appeals.
Mainland reorganized from a team-based to a department structure; Pam Millsap became Navy’s department chair and Amy Locklear his secondary supervisor; Navy received multiple disciplinary warnings in 2009–2010 for misconduct, proctoring/evaluation policy violations, grade errors, poor online course quality, and poor responsiveness to students.
Despite progressive discipline and repeated performance issues, Navy persisted in alleged misconduct (including making unsubstantiated accusations against colleagues); administrators recommended termination and the board approved his termination in July 2010.
Navy sued under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act alleging disparate-treatment racial discrimination and retaliation; Mainland moved for summary judgment (hybrid traditional and no-evidence); the trial court granted the motion.
On appeal, the court reviewed de novo, applied burden-shifting frameworks for discrimination and retaliation claims, and examined whether Navy produced evidence raising genuine fact issues as to similarly situated comparators and pretext for nonretaliatory reasons.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Navy proved disparate-treatment racial discrimination in termination	Navy argued termination was motivated by race and that similarly situated non-Black employees were treated better	Mainland argued Navy offered no evidence of any similarly situated employee with comparable misconduct who was treated more favorably	Court: Summary judgment affirmed — Navy produced no evidence of a similarly situated comparator; disparate-treatment claim fails
Whether Navy proved retaliation for protected complaints	Navy pointed to grievances, a TWC complaint, and litigation as protected activity and alleged adverse actions (peer evals, tenure denials, termination) followed	Mainland showed legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for tenure denials and termination (tenure-file defects, plagiarism, poor course quality, poor performance, student complaints); peer evaluation not materially adverse	Court: Summary judgment affirmed — either actions not materially adverse (peer eval) or Navy failed to show pretext/but-for causation for tenure denials/termination
Whether initial tenure denials constituted adverse "ultimate employment decisions" for discrimination claim	Navy treated tenure denials as adverse actions	Mainland and court noted tenure denials were not "ultimate" because tenure was later granted via appeal	Court: Initial tenure denials not treated as ultimate adverse actions for the disparate-treatment claim
Whether Navy showed he was replaced by someone outside protected class (discharge-discrimination claim)	Navy asserted unlawful discharge discrimination	Mainland asserted Navy produced no evidence of replacement by non-Black employee	Concurrence: Summary judgment also proper on a discharge-replacement theory — Navy provided no evidence he was replaced by someone outside protected class

Key Cases Cited

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct.) (burden-shifting framework; plaintiff must show employer’s reason was pretext)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct.) (prima facie case framework for circumstantial-discrimination cases)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct.) (retaliation standard: materially adverse actions judged by whether they would deter reasonable employee)
Nassar v. Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 2517 (Sup. Ct.) (retaliation claims require but-for causation)
Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.) (TCHRA interpreted to effectuate Title VII policies)