Jackie Outley v. Luke & Associates, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18835
5th Cir.2016Background
- Jackie Outley contracted with Luke & Associates to provide pharmacy services at Keesler AFB under an agreement giving the Air Force control over supervision, duties, equipment, and scheduling.
- Air Force supervisors documented multiple performance incidents by Outley (incorrect IV fluids, a heated argument/counseling, and a medication prepacking/mislabeling error) in memoranda dated May–July 2011.
- Air Force notified Luke of performance concerns; Luke proposed a transfer in lieu of termination and Outley was moved from inpatient to outpatient pharmacy positions (she disputes consenting to the transfer).
- Outley complained to Colonel McBride about workplace hostility and later filed an Air Force complaint; she sued Luke alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and § 1981. She also sought a merit raise that Luke denied.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Luke, concluding Outley failed to establish a prima facie discrimination case or show pretext for discriminatory/retaliatory motives; it also denied Outley’s late motion to compel discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfers were adverse employment actions for discrimination claim | Transfers to outpatient were worse (reduced hours at times, no overtime, higher patient load, required training) and thus adverse | Transfers were lateral: same pay, full-time status maintained, not objectively worse | Transfers were not adverse employment actions; summary judgment on discrimination affirmed |
| Whether denial of merit raise was discriminatory | Denial of raise constituted adverse action and others received raises | No similarly situated comparators; Outley had documented misconduct justifying denial | Prima facie as to raise arguable, but Outley failed to show similarly situated employees or pretext; discrimination claim fails |
| Whether Luke’s provided reasons (performance issues, contractual obligation) were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | Reasons were pretextual; hostile-work-environment evidence and biased comments show motive | Luke produced contemporaneous memoranda documenting performance and contractual duty to comply with Air Force request | Luke met burden to articulate legitimate reasons; Outley did not produce substantial evidence of pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether denial of raise was retaliatory after protected complaint | Close timing and alleged threat by Air Force officer show retaliation | Luke relied on performance documentation and contractual limits; no evidence Air Force officer controlled Luke's pay decision | Prima facie temporal link exists, but Outley failed to show "but for" causation or pretext; retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507 (elements of prima facie case and comparator analysis)
- Thompson v. City of Waco, 764 F.3d 500 (explains when transfers are objectively worse/demotions)
- LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (job performance as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (pretext standards under burden-shifting)
- Nassar (Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar), 133 S. Ct. 2517 ("but for" causation standard for retaliation)
- Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393 (evidence not properly before district court when not cited in summary judgment response)