Rebecca Musser v. Paul Quinn College
944 F.3d 557
5th Cir.2019Background
- Paul Quinn College (PQC), a federally grant-funded HBCU, hired Rebecca Musser as interim controller (later full-time) while outsourcing some accounting to eCratchit and ETI.
- Musser raised internal concerns in November 2011 alleging CFO Antwane Owens mishandled federal grant drawdowns; she delivered a memorandum explicitly accusing Owens of defrauding the federal government.
- The Board investigated, placed both Musser and Owens on paid administrative leave, and later concluded no further action was recommended; litigation between Musser and Owens followed, with final judgment favoring Musser.
- Musser remained on paid leave during the litigation; in August 2014 PQC notified her that her administrative leave ended and her controller position was eliminated as part of a business-office reorganization.
- Musser sued PQC under the False Claims Act whistleblower-retaliation provision alleging her termination was retaliatory; the district court granted summary judgment for PQC.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding PQC offered legitimate non-retaliatory reasons (reorganization and performance) and Musser failed to present substantial evidence of pretext or but-for causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PQC's stated reasons (position elimination and poor performance) were pretext for FCA retaliation | Musser: elimination occurred while she was on leave for reporting; elimination and other facts show pretext | PQC: offered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons — reorganization eliminating controller role and documented poor performance | Court: Held PQC met its burden; Musser failed to produce substantial evidence that reasons were pretext |
| Whether elimination of position discovered while on leave establishes causation | Musser: position was only eliminated because she was on leave after protected report, so termination was "because of" protected activity | PQC: reorganization decision was independent and legitimate; discovery during leave does not make action retaliatory | Court: Rejected Musser’s attenuated causation theory; employer may take nondiscriminatory action discovered during leave |
| Whether alleged friendship between Sorrell and Owens or inconsistent explanations show retaliatory motive | Musser: Sorrell’s deference to Owens (waiving conflict) and purported shifting reasons indicate bias and pretext | PQC: offered consistent explanation—initial intent to fire for performance, ultimate termination due to elimination of role | Court: Evidence of friendship/waiver and explanations were insufficient to show retaliatory motive or inconsistent reasons |
| Whether temporal proximity between protected activity and termination suffices | Musser: timing (report Nov 2011; termination Aug 2014) supports inference of retaliation | PQC: timing alone is weak; other evidence undermines causal inference | Court: Temporal proximity alone insufficient at pretext stage absent other significant evidence; Musser offered none |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden to show essential element)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (employer burden of production and evaluation of evidence at summary judgment)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (employer’s articulated reasons must be credited unless pretext shown)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation standard for retaliation)
- United States ex rel. King v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 871 F.3d 318 (temporal proximity insufficient alone to show pretext)
- Garcia v. Prof'l Contract Servs., Inc., 938 F.3d 236 (examples of sufficient pretext evidence: timing, disputes over facts, disparate treatment)
- LeMaire v. La. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (job performance is a legitimate non‑retaliatory reason)
- Diaz v. Kaplan Higher Educ., L.L.C., 820 F.3d 172 (reduction-in-force/reorganization is legitimate non-retaliatory reason)
- Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398 (tight temporal proximity plus other evidence can show pretext)
- Strong v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., L.L.C., 482 F.3d 802 (temporal proximity alone insufficient to survive summary judgment)