Mary Harville v. City of Houston, Mississippi, 935 F.3d 404

Harville, a white deputy city clerk in Houston, Mississippi, was laid off in Sept. 2015 as part of a unanimous Board vote cutting four positions to address a budget shortfall.
Four deputy clerks were cross-trained; Harville’s primary duties were tax processing. The City Clerk, Margaret Futral, advocated keeping Harville and said Harville’s tax duties were hard to replace.
Two other deputies (Buggs and Shequala Jones) are Black and related to Alderwoman Sheina Jones; Alderwoman Jones suggested Buggs could cover Harville’s work. After Harville’s layoff, Buggs could not perform much of the tax work.
Harville filed an EEOC charge in Nov. 2015 (race and age); later sued (Apr. 2016). She alleged race discrimination in the layoff and later retaliation when she was not hired as City Clerk in 2016.
The Board later advertised the clerk job multiple times, interviewed candidates in late 2016, and hired Lisa Sanford (an experienced accountant with a BS in Accounting). Harville was interviewed but not hired.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City on Harville’s race-discrimination and Title VII retaliation claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Race discrimination (termination) — whether Harville produced evidence that race was a motivating factor / that City’s RIF reason was pretext	Harville says the City’s seasonality rationale was pretext: Futral testified job was not seasonal, Harville had strong reviews, and Alderwoman Jones pushed to protect relatives (nepotism)	City says layoffs were a legitimate RIF response to budget shortfall; decisionmakers honestly believed Harville’s position was seasonal and the Board voted unanimously	Harville established prima facie case, but failed to show City’s stated reason was pretext for racial animus; summary judgment affirmed
Retaliation (failure to hire) — whether there was causal connection and pretext	Harville contends filing EEOC charge and suit led to refusal to interview/hire her for Clerk position	City argues temporal gap (~12 months) undermines causation; hiring of Sanford justified by her accounting degree and experience; earlier non-interviews were due to budget concerns	Temporal proximity insufficient to establish causation; even assuming prima facie case, Harville failed to show the hiring rationale was pretextual; summary judgment affirmed

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff can prevail if prima facie case plus sufficient evidence to reject employer’s nondiscriminatory explanation)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s-paw liability where biased subordinate’s action is proximate cause of adverse action)
Alkhawaldeh v. Dow Chem. Co., 851 F.3d 422 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment standards and McDonnell Douglas application)
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity must be very close for causation in retaliation claims)
Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Texas, LLC, 753 F.3d 165 (5th Cir.) (ten months insufficient for causation by temporal proximity)
Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (5th Cir.) (pretext shown by disparate treatment or proving employer’s explanation false)
Robertson v. Alltel Info. Servs., 373 F.3d 647 (5th Cir.) (analysis of subjective belief of decisionmakers and comparator standards)
Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir.) (similarly-situated comparator standard in discrimination cases)
Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398 (5th Cir.) (Title VII and § 1981 proof treated similarly)