Gwendolyn Atkins v. Southeast Community Health Sys
712 F. App'x 388
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Atkins worked for nonprofit SCHS from 1996; by 2010 she handled ordering free prescriptions through the Patient Assistance Program (PAP) portal.
- She was terminated in 2008, filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination, settled and was reinstated; she later filed a second EEOC charge alleging retaliation for failure to honor the reinstatement.
- SCHS learned of the second EEOC charge by July 2009; Atkins filed an internal grievance in October 2009 and was reassigned in November 2009.
- A May 2010 HR investigation found Atkins had requested multiple Viagra shipments via the PAP portal for friends/family without prescriptions and sometimes picked up medication herself; she was terminated May 20, 2010; criminal charges later filed and dismissed.
- Atkins sued under Title VII for retaliatory termination; the district court granted summary judgment for SCHS, concluding Atkins failed to show causation and failed to prove pretext. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atkins established a prima facie retaliation claim (causal link) | Temporal proximity and that her EEOC charges were "in the picture continuously" from 2008–2010 shows causation | Long lapse (at least 10 months) between employer notice of charge and termination; intervening events break causal chain | Court: temporal proximity here is insufficient; no causal link established |
| Whether SCHS's stated reason for termination was pretextual | Atkins asserts she did not engage in the misconduct alleged (denial of wrongdoing) | SCHS proffers investigation showing misuse of PAP portal to obtain drugs for others without prescriptions | Court: Atkins's denials amount to at most a scintilla; she failed to show but-for causation or that proffered reason was pretext |
| Admissibility/weight of the October 2009 grievance and November reassignment as evidence of causation | Atkins argues these events are closer in time and support causation | SCHS and court note they are intervening events that do not establish that termination was retaliation | Court: those events do not change analysis; argument forfeited or insufficient |
| Burden on plaintiff at summary judgment to avoid pretext dismissal | Atkins contends disputed facts (her denials and alleged continuous EEOC presence) raise triable issues | SCHS argues plaintiff must produce more than metaphysical doubt or a scintilla; must show but-for causation | Court: summary judgment appropriate; plaintiff failed to meet necessary evidentiary burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment denied if reasonable jury could find for non-movant)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (conclusory allegations or a scintilla of evidence insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (movant entitled to summary judgment if nonmovant fails to show an essential element)
- Feist v. Louisiana Dep’t of Justice, 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements and burden-shifting framework for Title VII retaliation)
- Raggs v. Miss. Power Light Co., 278 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2002) (five-month lapse insufficient alone to show causation)
- Roberson v. Alltel Info. Servs., 373 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2004) (adverse action after protected activity not always sufficient to show causation)