Ibim Harry v. Dallas Housing Authority
662 F. App'x 263
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ibim Harry, a Nigerian-born Black administrator, worked for Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) from 2009 until his termination in October 2012. He supervised a team and reported to Sherry Melvin.
- Harry alleges national-origin and race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, based largely on repeated critical remarks by Melvin about his mannerisms and alleged anti-Nigerian conduct by subordinates (one coworker was fired after assaulting him).
- DHA documented multiple performance problems and coworker complaints about Harry, culminating in an Individual Development Plan (IDP) in August 2012 outlining remediation tasks Harry failed to complete.
- Harry complained internally about Melvin’s conduct and later asserted he was fired in retaliation for complaining; DHA contends termination followed persistent performance and conduct issues, including IDP noncompliance and insubordination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DHA on both discrimination and retaliation claims; Harry appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether comments by Melvin constitute direct evidence of discrimination | Melvin’s remarks about Harry’s “animated” manner and ‘‘adapt’’ comment show national-origin animus | Remarks were counseling, occurred over time, and require inference to link to termination — not direct evidence | Not direct evidence; inference required, so apply McDonnell Douglas framework |
| Whether Harry established discrimination via circumstantial evidence (pretext) | Harry says he complied with IDP and DHA’s reasons are pretextual; discovery withheld some emails | DHA produced extensive documentation of poor performance, complaints, IDP noncompliance, and insubordination | Plaintiff established prima facie, but failed to show pretext as to the multiple nondiscriminatory reasons; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Harry proved Title VII retaliation for complaining | Harry engaged in protected complaints and was fired soon after | DHA’s nondiscriminatory reasons for firing applied equally to retaliation claim | Even assuming prima facie, Harry failed to show DHS’s reasons were pretextual; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether district court erred in refusing to consider a hostile-work-environment claim raised in opposition to summary judgment | Harry attempted to revive an abandoned hostile-work-environment claim at summary judgment | DHA argued claim was abandoned and discovery had concluded; claim not in amended complaint | Court properly declined to consider the new claim; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate-treatment claims with circumstantial evidence)
- Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2002) (definition of direct evidence)
- Rubenstein v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2000) (timing and relatedness relevant to direct-evidence analysis)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (employer’s false explanation can show pretext)
- Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 482 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies can support inference of pretext)
- Banks v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 320 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2003) (elements of Title VII retaliation prima facie case)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) (summary of burden-shifting in Title VII cases)