Frances Smith v. Board of Supr of So Univ
656 F. App'x 30
5th Cir.2016Background
- Frances R. Smith was Special Assistant and Counsel to the President at Southern University; she began working there in the 1970s and was 64 when terminated in 2009.
- After advising President Slaughter about Board-member sexual harassment allegations, Smith testified in Slaughter’s later suit; Slaughter was terminated in 2009 and his suit settled.
- Interim President Kassie Freeman implemented a reorganization to close a budget deficit, terminating Smith and ~16 others; Freeman then hired Tracie Woods (age 47) into a dual role, saving ~$70,000 from the operating budget.
- Smith filed an EEOC complaint that resulted in a favorable determination but no settlement, then sued in state court alleging Title VII retaliation and ADEA age discrimination; the case was removed to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board on both claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding the Board offered legitimate, nonretaliatory and nondiscriminatory reasons (budget-driven reorganization and hiring a more qualified replacement) and Smith failed to show pretext or but-for causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII retaliation — whether termination was retaliation for testifying | Smith contends her testimony in Slaughter’s suit prompted Freeman/Board to fire her | Board says termination was part of budget-driven reorganization; replacement cut operating costs and was more qualified | Affirmed for Board; plaintiff failed to produce substantial evidence of pretext or that protected activity was the but-for cause |
| ADEA age discrimination — whether termination based on age | Smith asserts she was replaced by a younger employee and Freeman favored younger staff | Board again cites legitimate budgetary reorganization and Woods’s qualifications | Affirmed for Board; Smith’s subjective beliefs insufficient to show pretext or permit a jury finding |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (legal framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Title VII retaliation prohibition)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (but-for causation required for Title VII retaliation)
- Zamora v. City of Houston, 798 F.3d 326 (cat’s-paw/need to show influence on decisionmaker)