Rafael Diaz v. Kaplan Higher Education, L.L.C
820 F.3d 172
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Diaz, hired in 2010 as a paralegal instructor at Kaplan’s San Antonio-Ingram campus, reported a student’s allegation (April 2012) that lead instructor Irma Zatarain marked a student present despite missed classes; Kaplan’s compliance investigation was inconclusive.
- New Executive Director Liza Canchola implemented a campus-wide reduction-in-force due to enrollment declines and determined one full-time paralegal position must be eliminated; Diaz had the lowest evaluation and less experience than Zatarain.
- Canchola recommended eliminating Diaz’s position; Kaplan informed Diaz his job was eliminated on June 7, 2012, along with other cuts that day.
- Diaz sued under the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress; the latter was dismissed for failure to address in briefing and not pursued on appeal.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Kaplan, concluding Kaplan offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (company-wide RIF) and Diaz failed to raise pretext below; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonnell Douglas framework applies to FCA §3730(h) claims | McDonnell Douglas framework governs (agree) | McDonnell Douglas framework governs (agree) | Applied McDonnell Douglas framework |
| Whether Kaplan offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for termination | Diaz argued timing and complaint about Zatarain suggest retaliation | Kaplan asserted campus-wide reduction-in-force and performance-based selection (Diaz lowest-rated) | Kaplan’s RIF is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; burden shifted to Diaz to show pretext |
| Whether Diaz showed pretext for retaliation | Diaz pointed to prior audit about Zatarain, alleged attendance fraud, and timing of termination | Kaplan: Diaz failed to present or articulate pretext evidence below | Held Diaz waived/precluded from relying on pretext on appeal because he did not raise/argue pretext in district court; summary judgment affirmed |
| Admissibility/weight of affidavits and evidence (Canchola, Bledsoe, Lopez, student allegation) | Diaz argued the company affidavits were from interested witnesses and district court ignored Lopez affidavit and student allegation | Kaplan: affiants are company agents whose testimony about reasons is admissible; Lopez affidavit was temporally irrelevant; student allegation was uninvestigated and not tied to pretext showing | Court approved consideration of Kaplan agent affidavits, found Lopez affidavit irrelevant (pre-RIF timeframe), and held Diaz failed to connect student allegation to pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Roberson v. Alltel Info. Servs., 373 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2004) (company-wide reduction-in-force is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination)
- DePree v. Saunders, 588 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment on appeal)
- Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 1998) (nonmovant must identify specific record evidence and explain how it supports claim at summary judgment)
- Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2002) (employer may rely on testimony of its agents about reasons for discharge)