1:18-cv-00363
W.D. Tex.Jun 19, 2019Background
- Layla Moore, an African‑American certified medical assistant, worked for Baylor Scott & White Health (BS&W) and alleges disability (anxiety/panic disorder) and retaliation/race discrimination after coworker made racially charged remarks in Nov. 2016.
- Moore reported the incident to her supervisor, to the HR hotline (“People Place”), and made an in‑person HR complaint on Dec. 22, 2016 (recorded). She claims resultant anxiety attacks and sought medical advice to stay home until Dec. 26.
- Following written reprimands in early December, Moore left work after the HR visit; she texted supervisors that she was ill and would not return until Dec. 26. Supervisors maintained she abandoned her job.
- BS&W terminated Moore on Dec. 26, 2016 for two consecutive days of no‑call/no‑show under its attendance policy. BS&W disputes knowledge of prior race complaints or of Moore’s disability.
- Court reviewed summary judgment motion: found genuine fact issues on (1) Title VII retaliation and (2) ADA discrimination (including whether Moore had a disability, was qualified, and whether termination was because of disability); found Moore abandoned any Title VII race‑discrimination claim. Recommendation: grant summary judgment in part (race claims) and deny in part (retaliation and ADA discrimination).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore abandoned her Title VII race‑discrimination claim | Moore no longer pursues a race‑discrimination claim | Race claim fails; plaintiff abandoned it | Court: race claim abandoned; grant summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether Moore established Title VII retaliation prima facie | Moore engaged in protected activity (complaints to supervisor, People Place, and HR), suffered termination, and proximity (six weeks) shows causation | Termination was for legitimate, nonretaliatory reason (no‑call/no‑show) and attacks plaintiff credibility | Court: genuine issues of material fact on retaliation (protected activity, adverse action, causation, and pretext); deny summary judgment |
| Whether BS&W’s stated reason for termination was pretextual | Text messages and medical note show Moore notified supervisors she was ill and advised to stay home; therefore reason (abandonment/no‑call) is false | Termination for two consecutive no‑call/no‑show consistent with written policy | Court: factual dispute exists; plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find BS&W’s reason false (pretext) |
| Whether Moore established ADA discrimination (disability, qualification, causation) | Anxiety/panic disorder diagnosed, treated, and episodic; two‑to‑three days off was reasonable; she informed supervisors of condition | Employer argues Hill unaware of disability; attendance violation shows not qualified | Court: genuine fact issues on existence of disability, notice, qualification, and causal motive; deny summary judgment on ADA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and credibility at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext and inference of discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation)
- Thompson v. City of Waco, 764 F.3d 500 (5th Cir.) (definition of adverse employment action)
- EEOC v. EmCare, Inc., 857 F.3d 678 (5th Cir.) (complaints to HR constitute protected activity)
- Outley v. Luke & Assocs., Inc., 840 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.) (timing as evidence of causation)
- Johnson v. Halstead, 916 F.3d 410 (5th Cir.) (temporal proximity can show causation)