Hague v. University of Texas Health Science Center
560 F. App'x 328
5th Cir.2014Background
- Monica Hague, a registered nurse, worked at UTHSC as a term Civilian Training Officer from Dec 2008 to Aug 31, 2011; her contract was not renewed after June 2011.
- Hague complained internally (Sept–Oct 2010) that Dr. Manifold read an explicit article aloud at a meeting and gave a sexually explicit doll to a coworker; UTHSC issued admonitions but found no sexual harassment warranting discipline.
- Hague filed an EEOC charge on June 17, 2011; UTHSC notified her of nonrenewal on June 20, 2011 (EEOC received the charge June 21).
- Hague sued under Title VII alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment (hostile work environment/quid pro quo), and retaliation for filing complaints.
- District court granted summary judgment to UTHSC on all claims; Fifth Circuit affirmed on sex-discrimination and harassment, vacated and remanded the retaliation claim for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion for disparate-treatment sex discrimination | Hague contends EEOC filing and lawsuit put UTHSC on notice of discrimination claim | UTHSC argues Hague did not include a disparate-treatment sex claim in her EEOC intake and thus failed to exhaust | Affirmed for defendant — discrimination claim not exhausted (outside scope of EEOC charge) |
| Sexual harassment — quid pro quo v. hostile work environment | Hague argues supervisor harassment (quid pro quo) caused tangible action (nonrenewal) | UTHSC says Manifold was not her supervisor and incidents were isolated/offensive but not pervasive | Affirmed for defendant — Manifold lacked authority for quid pro quo; incidents insufficiently severe/frequent for hostile work environment |
| Retaliation — causal connection / prima facie case | Hague relies on temporal proximity, Dr. Villers’s comments referring to her grievance, and nonrenewals/terminations of two female supporters as evidence of retaliation/pretext | UTHSC proffers legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for nonrenewal (performance, trust, staffing) | Reversed in part — district court’s grant on retaliation vacated; Fifth Circuit finds genuine-issue evidence of pretext and remands for district court to determine prima facie causation and further proceedings |
| Standard for summary-judgment stage burden-shifting (Aikens/McDonnell Douglas) | Hague elected to proceed on pretext; majority treats prima facie question as unresolved and remands | Dissent argues that once employer proffers nondiscriminatory reasons (as here), prima facie analysis is immaterial (Aikens) and court should proceed to pretext/trial | Majority requires district court to decide prima facie causation on remand; concurrence disagrees (dissent would send to trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (supervisor status for vicarious liability requires power to take tangible employment actions)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation statutory prohibition and adverse-action standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (objective/subjective hostile-work-environment standard)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer liability and standards for hostile-work-environment claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (use of prima facie evidence and inferences in pretext analysis)
- Woods v. Delta Beverage Group, Inc., 274 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2001) (elements of hostile work environment in Fifth Circuit)