Jonathan Thomas v. Jeh Johnson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9185
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Thomas was a probationary Border Patrol agent terminated for lack of candor.
- April 13, 2010, Thomas and partner diverted to a checkpoint where new interns were hazed, allegedly triggering investigation.
- Thomas submitted memoranda claiming he did not witness external activity and later clarified his email access during the checkpoint visit.
- Investigations by ICE and Internal Affairs, led by Berent, produced favorable findings regarding candor and statements.
- Supervisor Hinojosa terminated Thomas on October 25, 2010 citing lack of candor and shifts in Thomas's account.
- Thomas sued under Title VII alleging race/color discrimination; district court granted summary judgment for the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case established? | Thomas asserts a prima facie case of discrimination exists. | Government assumes Thomas carried a prima facie case; Burden shifts to legitimate reason. | Assumed for analysis; prima facie shown |
| Pretext shown for termination? | Thomas argues lack of candor was truthful; no pretext. | Lack of candor is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. | Pretext not shown |
| Disparate treatment proven? | Thomas points to others at checkpoint with inconsistent candor. | No evidence of similarly situated individuals treated differently. | No disparate treatment established |
| Are probationary and permanent agents similarly situated? | Thomas compares to permanent agents at checkpoint. | Probationary status yields different protections; not similarly situated. | Not similarly situated; different employment status |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Britt v. Grocers Supp. Co., 978 F.2d 1441 (5th Cir. 1992) (assists in recognizing prima facie case framework)
- Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086 (5th Cir. 1995) (question is whether decision was made with discriminatory motive)
- Waggoner v. City of Garland, Tex., 987 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1993) (pretext requires bad faith not just erroneous decision)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (pretext shown by false or unworthy of credence explanations)
- Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2011) (employer must articulate legitimate reason for action)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (probationary vs permanent employees not similarly situated)
- Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (probationary status affects comparators and protections)