Garcia v. EEOC
20-60169
| 5th Cir. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Valerie M. Garcia served two appointed two-year terms as an Associate Municipal Judge in Brownsville, Texas; she was not reappointed after her second term expired in 2018.
- Shortly before the non-reappointment, Garcia complained to court administration about pay disparities: she alleged she was paid less than other similarly titled male judges.
- The interim city manager (an appointed, not elected, official) informed Garcia she would not be reappointed.
- Garcia filed EEOC charges alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under GERA, Title VII, and the Equal Pay Act; she sought an ALJ hearing as to her GERA claims.
- EEOC dismissed Garcia’s GERA claims because GERA covers only individuals chosen or appointed by elected officials; the EEOC found Garcia was appointed by the city manager (an appointed official). Garcia appealed to the EEOC, which affirmed dismissal; she then petitioned this court for review.
- The Fifth Circuit applied the appropriate standard of review for EEOC final orders and denied Garcia’s petition, holding GERA did not cover her and rejecting her related due process arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GERA applies to Garcia | Garcia: GERA fills Title VII gaps for non-Title-VII-covered policymaking officials; as a policymaking municipal judge she is covered. | EEOC/City: GERA covers only individuals chosen/appointed by an elected official; Garcia was appointed by the city manager (an appointed official), so GERA does not apply. | GERA does not cover Garcia because she was appointed by an unelected (appointed) city manager; EEOC dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether EEOC’s dismissal and denial of an ALJ hearing violated due process | Garcia: denial of an ALJ hearing and dismissal deprived her liberty/property interests without due process. | EEOC: Garcia had opportunity to pursue claims; dismissal rested on statutory inapplicability of GERA; other claims (Title VII, EPA) remain unexhausted and not before the court. | No due process violation: EEOC properly dismissed GERA claims pre-hearing; property-interest claims under other statutes are not ripe here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brazoria Cnty. v. EEOC, 391 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for EEOC final orders)
- Crowder v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Cts., 374 F. Supp. 3d 539 (E.D.N.C. 2019) (magistrate appointed by elected judge held covered by GERA)
- Lopez v. City of Hous., 617 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2010) (ripeness doctrine; dismiss where claim is abstract or hypothetical)
- Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Wolfe, 212 F.3d 891 (5th Cir. 2000) (ripeness; further factual development required prevents review)