984 F.3d 460
5th Cir.2021Background
- Sarah Lindsley worked for Omni Hotels for ~16 years and became Food & Beverage Director at the Omni Corpus Christi location.
- Lindsley’s starting salary as director ($70,851) was lower than three male predecessors who held the same position at the same hotel.
- She complained to HR about pay disparities, alleged sexual harassment by a former supervisor who later became a corporate executive, applied (then withdrew) for a director position in Houston, and filed an EEOC charge in 2015.
- Lindsley took FMLA leave in 2016 after reporting mental-health issues she attributes to discrimination; she alleges subsequent retaliatory acts (lowered reviews, deleted files, ostracism) and ultimately left Omni in June 2016.
- District court granted summary judgment to Omni on all claims; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary-judgment record de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pay discrimination (same-position predecessors) | Lindsley: paid less than three male predecessors who held the identical F&B Director job at the same hotel, establishing a prima facie case | Omni: contested sufficiency of prima facie proof and comparability | Court: Lindsley established a prima facie case as to the three predecessors; reversed district court and remanded for Omni to articulate nondiscriminatory reasons |
| Use of comparators from other Omni locations under Equal Pay Act | Lindsley: male F&B Directors at other Omni hotels are valid comparators | Omni: EPA requires same "establishment"; other locations are distinct | Court: EPA claim cannot rely on other locations (affirmed as to EPA comparators); but Title VII/Texas Labor Code lack an establishment requirement, so remanded to consider those comparators |
| Promotional discrimination (Houston position) | Lindsley: denied promotion because of sex (interview interference by corporate VP) | Omni: Lindsley voluntarily withdrew; she was not rejected | Court: Affirmed — Lindsley withdrew and was not rejected, so promotional claim fails |
| Retaliation (EEOC charge and FMLA leave) | Lindsley: suffered adverse actions (ostracism, lowered reviews, deleted files, hostile conduct) and constructive discharge after protected activity | Omni: asserted incidents were minor, non‑retaliatory, and not materially adverse | Court: Affirmed — evidence insufficient to show a materially adverse action or constructive discharge; retaliation claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (defines materially adverse actions in retaliation context)
- Marshall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 605 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1979) (when multiple locations may constitute a single "establishment" under EPA)
- Taylor v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 554 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2008) (comparability standard and McDonnell Douglas application)
- Jones v. Flagship Int’l, 793 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1986) (Equal Pay Act comparability elements)
- Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2000) (supervisor criticism and nonactionable conduct)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standards)