Sharita Giles v. Shaw School District
655 F. App'x 998
5th Cir.2016Background
- Sharita Giles was principal of McEvans School (2008–2013); under her tenure McEvans received consecutive underperforming/failing ratings and failed an At‑Risk Plan by 2012.
- In Oct. 2012 the superintendent recommended a 5% raise for Giles; the School Board denied it and Giles filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination.
- In Feb. 2013 the superintendent recommended Giles for renewal but the Board declined to renew her contract; Giles requested and received a multi‑day hearing under Miss. Code § 37‑9‑109, and the Board upheld the nonrenewal; the Chancery Court affirmed on appeal.
- Giles filed additional EEOC charges alleging gender discrimination and retaliation, obtained a right‑to‑sue letter, and sued in federal court under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection and due process theories).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Giles failed to establish prima facie discrimination or retaliation and failed to show deprivation of protected liberty or property interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender discrimination (nonrenewal & raise) | Giles says nonrenewal and denial of raise were because of her sex | Board says actions were due to McEvans’s poor performance, not sex | Affirmed: Giles failed to establish a prima facie case; comparator not nearly identical |
| Title VII retaliation | Giles says Board nonrenewed her in retaliation for her earlier EEOC charge after the denied raise | Board says nonrenewal was for legitimate, nonretaliatory reason (school performance) | Affirmed: even assuming prima facie case, Giles failed to show pretext or but‑for causation |
| Substantive due process | Giles says nonrenewal/deprivation of employment shocked the conscience and violated substantive due process | Board says decision was for good cause (poor performance) and not conscience‑shocking | Affirmed: conduct did not shock the conscience; no substantive violation |
| Procedural due process / property & liberty interests | Giles claims she had property or liberty interests (state statutes, reputation, hearing deficiencies, board bias) | Board says no protected property interest (one‑year contract; statutes don’t create tenure) and she received required process | Affirmed: no protected liberty interest shown; statutes do not create entitlement and procedures provided were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Haire v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., 719 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard review)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (requirement that comparator be nearly identical)
- Septimus v. Univ. of Hous., 399 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2005) (applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation claims)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) (elements of retaliation prima facie case)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Wells v. Hico Indep. Sch. Dist., 736 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1984) (liberty interest requires more than reduced employability)