Flores v. Danberg, 1:13-cv-00075

Rene Flores, a Hispanic DOC lieutenant, applied for a captain/watch-commander position at Sussex Correctional Institution in 2011 and was ranked third by a subjective three-member panel; a Caucasian candidate ("JB") was selected.
Flores filed a grievance and then an EEOC charge alleging racial/national-origin discrimination after the selection; he later amended to add retaliation when he was terminated.
Separately, an external complainant alleged Flores accessed and disseminated criminal records via DELJIS; internal and DELJIS investigations followed, identifying numerous unauthorized searches by Flores.
Disciplinary proceedings found violations of DELJIS policy and deceptive explanations by Flores; two other employees with DELJIS violations received lesser suspensions.
After a pre-decision meeting in which the DOC’s Commissioner concluded Flores lied about the searches, DOC terminated Flores for dishonesty and misuse of DELJIS; the union declined arbitration.
Flores sued under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 (equal protection), First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, Delaware tort claims, and the Delaware Whistleblowers’ Protection Act; defendants moved for summary judgment and the court granted it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination in promotion (Title VII / § 1981)	Flores contends the switch from objective scoring (2010) to a subjective panel (2011) was used to deny his promotion because he is Hispanic.	Panel’s unanimous evaluation credited JB’s superior interview; poor interview performance provides legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.	Court: grant summary judgment for defendants; Flores failed to show pretext.
Retaliation for EEOC filing (Title VII)	Flores argues termination was retaliation for filing EEOC charge after the hiring grievance.	DOC contends termination resulted from an independent DELJIS investigation showing dishonesty and policy violations; dishonesty is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason.	Court: grant summary judgment for defendants; temporal proximity insufficient and intervening DELJIS investigation breaks causation.
§ 1983 / Equal Protection claim	Flores relies on same facts as Title VII claim to show purposeful discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment.	Defendants rely on nondiscriminatory reasons and lack of evidence of intentional discrimination.	Court: grant summary judgment for defendants for same reasons as Title VII ruling.
State-law claims (tortious interference, Whistleblower Act)	Flores asserts related state-law claims tied to termination and alleged retaliatory motive.	Defendants seek dismissal with federal claims resolved.	Court: declines supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discriminatory/retaliation claims)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard when moving party meets burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (sufficiency of evidence to survive summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must present specific evidence of genuine dispute)
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (direct evidence exception to McDonnell Douglas framework)
Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of Title VII retaliation prima facie case)
Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1997) (temporal proximity is not alone sufficient to prove causation)
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (district court’s discretion over supplemental jurisdiction)
De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2003) (discussing principles of federal-court supplemental jurisdiction)