Frederick Robinson v. Jackson State University, et
714 F. App'x 354
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robinson, a longtime Director of Sports Medicine at Jackson State, and coworker Henderson corroborated sexual-misconduct allegations made by secretary Ward against Athletic Director Dr. Vivian Fuller during EEOC interviews; Robinson met with Jackson State attorneys before and during his EEOC interview.
- Shortly after the EEOC interviews, Fuller terminated Robinson and Henderson; termination letters gave no reasons, but Jackson State later cited departmental reorganization and absenteeism.
- Robinson sued under Title VII and the First Amendment (§ 1983) for retaliation; a jury found decisionmaker knowledge and but-for causation and awarded lost income, emotional damages, and punitive damages.
- The district court granted judgment as a matter of law post-verdict, overturning the jury on the ground that Robinson lacked sufficient evidence that Fuller knew of his EEOC testimony when she fired him; it also denied attorney’s fees.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, focusing on whether circumstantial evidence sufficed to show (1) actual decisionmaker knowledge and (2) pretext/ultimate causation, and concluded the jury verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fuller knew of Robinson's EEOC testimony (decisionmaker knowledge) | Attorneys witnessed Robinson's interview; Fuller met with those attorneys about the same matter; Fuller changed behavior toward Robinson after the interview; temporal proximity and parallel firing of Henderson support inference of knowledge | Fuller and general counsel denied Fuller knew; attorneys' knowledge insufficiently tied to Fuller; inference is speculative | Jury reasonably inferred actual decisionmaker knowledge from circumstantial evidence; evidence legally sufficient to sustain verdict |
| Whether Jackson State's proffered reasons were pretextual (ultimate causation) | Reorganization timeline inconsistent with the reorg plan (which listed Robinson); Fuller added novel reasons at trial; termination breached policy; close timing to protected activity; parallel firing of corroborating witness supports pretext | Fuller decided to fire Robinson before the EEOC interview (pre-March) so protected activity could not be the but-for cause; offered nondiscriminatory reasons | Evidence permitted jurors to find pretext and but-for causation; district court erred to grant JMOL |
| Whether appellant abandoned First Amendment claim on appeal | Robinson briefed § 1983 and Title VII and sought reinstatement of verdict (including punitive damages based on § 1983) | Jackson State argued Robinson failed to brief First Amendment on appeal and thus abandoned it | Court found no abandonment: appellant’s brief raised § 1983 claim and challenged the district court’s reversal of the verdict |
| Whether judgment as a matter of law was appropriate under Rule 50 standard | JMOL improper because evidence must be viewed and all inferences drawn for the nonmovant; credibility issues for jury | JMOL proper because evidence was speculative and employer presented uncontradicted testimony | Review de novo: the totality of circumstantial evidence precluded JMOL; verdict reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994) (issues not raised in initial brief are abandoned)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (burden of proof and when jury may infer discrimination from falsity of employer’s explanation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Mount Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (Mt. Healthy burden-shifting for public-employee First Amendment cases)
- Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 144 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1998) (but-for causation standard after trial)
- EmCare, Inc. v. EEOC, 857 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) (decisionmaker knowledge may be shown circumstantially but requires more than speculative inferences)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for JMOL)
- Haverda v. Hays County, 723 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (Mt. Healthy and but-for causation explained)
- Pineda v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 360 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2004) (after trial, courts assess whether sufficient evidence supports jury’s discrimination finding)
- Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (employers need not suspend previously planned actions upon learning of protected activity)