Randy Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6510
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Randy Jenkins, a 51-year-old African-American district chief in the San Antonio Fire Department since 1986, oversaw Community Safety & Education (CS&E) and various Fire Prevention functions at different times.
- In 2011 Assistant Chief Earl Crayton realigned duties: Jenkins retained CS&E while Captain Monestier took Inspections and Special Events. Jenkins filed an EEOC charge on August 19, 2011, alleging race/age discrimination and retaliation; EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on May 16, 2012.
- In 2012 Jenkins applied for the now-vacant District Chief of Inspections position; a review panel selected Matias Jimenez (Hispanic) instead. Jenkins filed a second EEOC charge on August 17, 2012 alleging discriminatory non-selection and retaliation.
- Jenkins sued on August 20, 2012 (adding the 2012 allegations by amendment in June 2013). The district court granted summary judgment for the Fire Department: it found the 2011 claims untimely and held Jenkins failed to establish prima facie discrimination or retaliation for the 2012 non-selection.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding (1) when receipt date is unknown courts should presume a three-day mailing receipt for the right-to-sue letter, rendering the 2011 suit untimely; and (2) Jenkins could not show an adverse (or materially adverse for retaliation) employment action from his non-selection, nor an actionable age gap with the selected candidate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 2011 EEOC-based claims | Jenkins argued a five-day presumption for receipt would make his suit timely | Fire Dept. argued a three-day presumption applies and the complaint was late | Court held a three-day presumption of receipt is appropriate; 2011 claims untimely |
| Whether non-selection for District Chief of Inspections was an adverse employment action (race claim) | Jenkins argued the Inspections post was objectively better and he was qualified | Fire Dept. argued the positions were lateral/equivalent in pay, duties, prestige, and benefits | Court held Jenkins failed to show an adverse action; non-selection not actionable |
| Age-discrimination via non-selection | Jenkins argued age discrimination in hiring | Fire Dept. noted selected candidate was less than two years younger and no adverse action shown | Court held no prima facie age-discrimination: insignificant age difference and no adverse action |
| Retaliation based on 2011 EEOC charge (2012 selection) | Jenkins argued he was denied the position in retaliation for filing the first EEOC charge | Fire Dept. argued no materially adverse action occurred and no causal link shown | Court held Jenkins failed to show a materially adverse action or sufficient causal evidence; retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.) (presumption of receipt when right-to-sue delivery date is uncertain)
- Martin v. Alamo Cmty. Coll. Dist., 353 F.3d 409 (5th Cir.) (applied three-day receipt presumption)
- Morgan v. Potter, 489 F.3d 195 (5th Cir.) (noting reasonableness of three-day presumption)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (prima facie burden-shifting framework)
- Alvarado v. Tex. Rangers, 492 F.3d 605 (5th Cir.) (factors for when denial of transfer is equivalent to denial of promotion)
- Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715 (5th Cir.) (elements of prima facie discrimination for non-selection)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation standard: materially adverse action standard)
- O’Connor v. Consol. Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (insignificant age difference insufficient to infer age discrimination)