Hernandez v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County
673 F. App'x 414
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- William Hernandez, a Hispanic METRO police officer of 20 years, was passed over for promotions to Sergeant (Apr 2012), Lieutenant (Apr 2012), and Captain (Feb 2012) after previously suing METRO in 2011 for discrimination/retaliation and winning a jury verdict on a different retaliation theory.
- METRO used LEMIT to define job duties and VME to administer anonymous written and assessment-center testing; promotion required a minimum score of 70 and ranking among top candidates.
- Hernandez scored 94 on the first written stage but a consolidated 61.13 on the Assessment Center (later corrected to 67.41), below the 70 threshold and below the rank cutoff for promotions.
- Hernandez alleged Title VII discrimination (race/national origin) and retaliation for his 2011 suit; METRO moved for summary judgment and the district court granted it.
- The district court held Hernandez failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims, was unqualified for Lieutenant and Captain, and that METRO offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (low score and ranking) for denying Sergeant promotion; it found temporal proximity insufficient for but-for causation on retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Hernandez's Argument | METRO's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hernandez qualified for Lieutenant? | He was qualified despite not meeting revised supervisory-experience timing. | He lacked the required supervisory experience within the two years before application. | Held: Not qualified; prima facie failure. |
| Was denial of Sergeant promotion discriminatory (pretext)? | Scoring errors and unequal treatment show pretext; educational points should apply. | VME’s anonymous scoring and METRO’s rules explain the result; corrected score still <70 so no education points apply. | Held: METRO provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; Hernandez failed to produce substantial evidence of pretext. |
| Were promotions to Captain actionable (exhaustion)? | Hernandez asserted claim on Captain promotion. | METRO: Hernandez failed to exhaust EEOC remedies for the Captain promotion. | Held: Hernandez abandoned/exhaustion failure for Captain promotion; claim barred. |
| Was Hernandez’s non-promotion retaliatory (but-for causation)? | Temporal proximity to 2011 suit suggests retaliation. | The anonymous testing, low score, and ranking, not the suit, caused non-promotion. | Held: Temporal proximity alone insufficient; Hernandez failed to show but-for causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715 (5th Cir.) ("clearly better qualified" supports pretext inference)
- Auguster v. Vermilion Par. Sch. Bd., 249 F.3d 400 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff must produce substantial evidence of pretext)