Haire v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10245
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Haire is a long-time LSU Police Department member who applied for Chief of Police but was not promoted.
- Durham served as interim Chief; Rabalais competed with Haire for the Chief position and allegedly disparaged her.
- Haire faced disciplinary actions after the Collins incident, including a Coaching Letter and a low performance evaluation.
- Rabalais later became interim and then permanent Chief, with Chancellor Martin ultimately making the final hiring decision.
- Haire filed EEOC and LCHR complaints alleging gender discrimination and retaliation; district court granted LSU summary judgment.
- Court reverses, finding genuine issues of material fact on discrimination and retaliation based on pretext and cat’s paw liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LSU’s non-discriminatory reason for not promoting Haire was pretextual | Haire argues bias and pretext shown by timing and discipline | LSU asserts misconduct justified the decision | Pretext issue for trial; genuine fact questions remain |
| Whether Rabalais’s remarks and actions can be imputed to the final decisionmaker | Cat’s paw theory supports imputation to Martin | No direct authority over hiring by Martin; no causal link shown | Fact issue on imputation under cat’s paw; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Haire’s alleged retaliation facts establish Title VII retaliation claim | EEOC/LCHR complaints and subsequent actions constitute protected activity and adverse action | Voir dire: no protected activity prior to certain adverse actions; causation weak | Genuine issues of material fact; retaliation claim not dismissed at summary judgment |
| Whether the Brown framework supports imputing discriminatory motive to final decisionmaker | Discriminatory remarks by Rabalais proximate to the decision; authority chain supports inference | Martin’s lack of direct discriminatory statements weakens inference | Issues of material fact; domain for trial under cat’s paw analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for discrimination burden shifting)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext can be shown by absence of credibility of the defendant's proffered reasons)
- Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996) (four-factor test for discrimination evidence including remarks by supervisor)