Sabrina Vincent v. College of the Mainland
703 F. App'x 233
5th Cir.2017Background
- Vincent worked as a computer lab assistant at College of the Mainland (COM) from 2004; she took multiple medical and FMLA leaves for family and personal illness and later disclosed treatment for depression and anxiety.
- Supervisors documented persistent tardiness and failure to follow check-in/notification procedures; COM implemented progressive discipline and offered a schedule accommodation that changed some lab assignments.
- Vincent filed internal grievances alleging discrimination and later EEOC/Texas Workforce Commission charges; investigations by COM found the grievances meritless and required limited corrective actions (e.g., apology, reassignment).
- COM issued successive Conduct Correction Plans (Levels One–Four) for attendance/noncompliance; Level Four terminated Vincent for failure to comply with prior plans.
- Vincent sued under Title VII (race/sex), the ADA (disability discrimination), and the FMLA (retaliation); the magistrate judge granted summary judgment for COM, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vincent created a genuine fact issue that termination was discrimination (Title VII/ADA) | Vincent argued COM’s stated reason (noncompliance with corrective plans) was pretext; relied on affidavits and her own evidence of disparate treatment | COM argued legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: progressive discipline for tardiness/noncompliance; contested admissibility of affidavits | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to raise pretext—key affidavits excluded/waived and her affidavit contradicted deposition testimony |
| Whether Brad Traylor was a proper comparator to show disparate treatment | Traylor (white male with depression) was treated better and not terminated | COM argued Traylor was not similarly situated (no demonstrated attendance or insubordination issues) | Affirmed: Traylor not a proper "nearly identical" comparator |
| Whether Burlington’s "materially adverse" standard applies to discrimination claims (vs. only retaliation) | Vincent urged broader Burlington standard for discrimination claims | COM relied on Fifth Circuit precedent limiting discrimination claims to "ultimate employment decisions" | Affirmed: Burlington does not expand discrimination standard; bound by McCoy (ultimate employment decisions only) |
| Whether Vincent established retaliation (Title VII/ADA/FMLA): materially adverse action and causation | Vincent argued actions (monitoring by coworker, unfriendly emails, progressive discipline) plus timing evidenced retaliation after protected complaints | COM argued only termination (and disciplining for noncompliance) was materially adverse; coworker conduct was not employer retaliation; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason existed | Affirmed: only termination was clearly adverse; coworker acts not attributable to employer; plaintiff failed to show pretext/causal evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Burlington N. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir.) (discrimination claims limited to ultimate employment decisions)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.) (pretext inquiry and evidence of unworthiness of employer’s reason)
- Thomas v. Johnson, 788 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.) (pretext and disparate-treatment routes to show falsity of employer’s reason)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir.) (requirement that comparators be "nearly identical")
- Jenkins v. Cleco Power, LLC, 487 F.3d 309 (5th Cir.) (ADA retaliation analysis under McDonnell Douglas)
- Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505 (5th Cir.) (elements of a retaliation prima facie case)