31 F.4th 990
5th Cir.2022Background
- Dr. Lesley Ann Saketkoo was an associate professor at Tulane School of Medicine (2014–2019), transferred from Allergy to Pulmonary in 2017 and supervised by Dr. Joseph Lasky.
- She alleges Lasky excluded her from research opportunities, diverted grant funds, and repeatedly demeaned her and other women (sporadic yelling, mocking, and berating over clinic/research matters).
- After a September 2018 confrontation she complained informally to colleagues and later reported issues to Tulane’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE); her contract was not renewed in February 2019 (reason given: salary shortfall/expected deficits).
- Saketkoo contends Dean Lee Hamm told others not to hire her and that Hamm communicated such a directive to Dr. Nirav Patel; Saketkoo recorded a September 2019 call in which Patel said Hamm had effectively told him not to hire her.
- She sued under Title VII for gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender discrimination (disparate treatment / non-renewal) | Saketkoo: Lasky and Administrators discriminated by denying research opportunities and non-renewing her contract while male peers were treated better. | Administrators: nonrenewal was due to persistent revenue deficits and lack of mission-critical value; proffered male comparators were not "nearly identical." | Affirmed for Administrators — plaintiff failed to identify valid comparators and did not show pretext. |
| Retaliation — contract non-renewal | Saketkoo: non-renewal was retaliation for her complaints and OIE involvement. | Administrators: no evidence she engaged in protected complaint about discrimination prior to non-renewal; legitimate nonretaliatory reasons exist. | Affirmed — no prima facie retaliation (no protected activity shown before decision). |
| Retaliation — alleged sabotage of UMC hiring (Hamm→Patel) | Saketkoo: Hamm’s discussion with Patel (not to hire) was caused by her protected complaints and thus retaliatory. | Administrators/Patel: Patel’s statements were his own characterization; he never asserts Hamm explicitly told him not to hire; UMC would defer to Tulane’s decisions. | Affirmed — albeit prima facie causation arguable, plaintiff failed to show but‑for causation or sufficient pretext. |
| Hostile work environment | Saketkoo: pattern of demeaning conduct by Lasky created an abusive, sex-based hostile environment. | Administrators: incidents were sporadic, not sufficiently severe or pervasive; conduct was not shown to be based on sex (men were also treated abrasively). | Affirmed — conduct not severe/pervasive and not shown to be motivated by sex. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (prima facie case description and burdens of proof)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion on intentional discrimination)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (antiretaliation statute scope and standards)
- Brown v. Wal‑Mart Stores E., L.P., 969 F.3d 571 (Fifth Circuit articulation of retaliation proof and pretext analysis)
- Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674 (knowledge of protected activity by decisionmaker can support causal link at prima facie stage)
- Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300 (distinguishing prima facie causation standard from ultimate "but for" causation)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile work environment actionable under Title VII)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (harassment must be severe or pervasive to affect terms of employment)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (requirements for comparator analysis in Fifth Circuit)