Stacey Roy v. Thomas Payne
712 F. App'x 367
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Stacey Roy, a Black female tobacco treatment specialist at University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC), was terminated in a RIF in June 2012 and later applied (unsuccessfully) for a Patient Advocate position.
- UMMC created a Senior Tobacco Treatment Specialist role requiring five years’ tobacco-treatment experience; only two employees (both Black males) met that requirement and were reclassified without a public posting; Roy had ~3.5 years and was not eligible.
- Roy filed an EEOC complaint in June 2012 alleging sex and race discrimination; the RIF plan terminating her was finalized/submitted before she filed the complaint.
- When Roy applied for Patient Advocate in April 2013, hiring manager Dana Phelps reviewed race-blind applications, interviewed four candidates, and hired a white male (bilingual candidate) as the most qualified; Phelps was unaware of UMMC’s “first consideration” rehiring policy for RIFed employees.
- Roy sued for failure to promote, retaliation (for EEOC complaint), and failure to hire. The district court granted summary judgment for UMMC; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no genuine dispute of material fact on any claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to promote — qualification for Senior position | Roy: JDQs show only "Health Services — 5 years" so any health-services experience sufficed; she was effectively qualified. | UMMC: position required 5 years specifically as a tobacco treatment specialist; Roy admitted she lacked that experience. | Court: Roy not objectively qualified; summary judgment for UMMC. |
| Retaliation for EEOC complaint (termination) | Roy: temporal proximity (terminated 4 days after EEOC filing) plus supervisor's assurance suggests causation. | UMMC: termination resulted from a preexisting budget-driven RIF finalized before Roy filed EEOC complaint (legitimate non-retaliatory reason). | Court: RIF plan predated EEOC filing, so no but-for causation; summary judgment for UMMC. |
| Failure to hire (Patient Advocate) — racial discrimination | Roy: UMMC failed to give RIFed employees "first consideration" and hiring result discriminated on race. | UMMC: hiring was race-blind; Phelps selected most qualified applicant (bilingual white male); policy ignorance not evidence of racial animus. | Court: No evidence Phelps knew race or applied policy selectively; summary judgment for UMMC. |
| Failure to hire — gender discrimination / pretext | Roy: employer’s failure to follow rehiring policy and other alleged treatment show pretext. | UMMC: hiring decision based on applicant merits; no selective policy application shown. | Court: Failure to follow internal policy without proof of differential treatment is not evidence of discrimination; summary judgment for UMMC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kemp v. Holder, 610 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- McMullin v. Miss. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 782 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2015) (elements of prima facie case for failure to promote)
- Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must meet objective qualifications)
- Shirley v. Chrysler First, Inc., 970 F.2d 39 (5th Cir. 1992) (elements and burden-shifting in retaliation claims)
- Campbell v. Lamar Inst. of Tech., 842 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2016) (appellate review may affirm on any ground supported in record)
- Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2007) (failure to follow employer policy not probative of discrimination absent differential treatment)