Esteban Garcia v. Professional Contract Svc Inc
938 F.3d 236
5th Cir.2019Background
- Garcia was Senior Operations Manager at Professional Contract Services (a nonprofit working under the Javits–Wagner–O’Day Act) with duties including contract compliance; he was assigned Job 560 (16 Border Patrol sites) in 2011.
- Garcia says he never received the full statement of work for Job 560; the company says it provided the contract. Location 6 of Job 560 went unserviced for ~2 years while the company billed the government.
- In April 2013 the company issued Garcia a Final Written Warning requiring contract reviews; the company later credited the government for undisputed work not performed.
- In June 2013 the company cited additional failures on Job 660 and terminated Garcia for repeated contract-management failures. Garcia contends some known problems predated his termination.
- Beginning in 2011 and culminating in April 2013, Garcia reported alleged billing and program abuses (to SourceAmerica and company counsel), then filed suit under the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the company; the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia) | Defendant's Argument (Company) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prima facie causation requires but-for causation or only a causal connection | Prima facie needs only a causal connection (close timing suffices); but-for is required later at pretext stage | Prima facie must show but-for causation (heightened standard) | Prima facie requires only causal connection; but-for causation applies at the McDonnell Douglas pretext stage (Fifth Circuit precedent reaffirmed) |
| Whether Garcia presented sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment | Temporal proximity plus other evidence (disputed facts, comparator Rodas, supervisor harassment after reporting, company’s prior knowledge of problems, company’s potential financial motive) shows genuine issue of fact | Employer offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (performance failures); comparator not similarly situated; evidence insufficient | Court found Garcia’s combined evidence analogous to Shackelford and sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment was erroneous and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (but-for causation required at McDonnell Douglas pretext stage)
- Feist v. Louisiana Department of Justice, 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) (Fifth Circuit treats close timing as sufficient for prima facie causation and applies Nassar at pretext step)
- Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 1999) (combination of timing and other evidence can create genuine issue of pretext)
- Lee v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (standards for determining whether employees are similarly situated)
- United States ex rel. King v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 871 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2017) (discusses prima facie and pretext burdens in FCA retaliation context)
- Jones v. Robinson Property Group, L.P., 427 F.3d 987 (5th Cir. 2005) (short temporal proximity can support causation inference)
- Strong v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., L.L.C., 482 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to prove pretext)
- Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (three-month gap may be insufficient for an inference of causation)