Wheat v. Florida Parish Juvenile Justice Commission
811 F.3d 702
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Lillie Wheat, a longtime employee at the Florida Parishes Juvenile Detention Center (FPJDC), was reinstated after an FMLA suit settlement in March 2011 to a lower-ranking JDS Officer post but with prior salary retained.
- After reinstatement Wheat refused two supervisory promotions because of pay/overtime consequences; she later reported a juvenile’s sexual advances and complained about handling of that conduct.
- Wheat had prior discipline in 2005 for excessive force; in January 2012 she had two physical incidents with a juvenile (including a pressure-point hold and threats) and was suspended and then terminated on January 19, 2012.
- Wheat sued for retaliation under Title VII and the FMLA (and alleged inmate-on-employee sexual harassment); the district court granted summary judgment for the Commission.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on most pre-termination retaliation claims (janitorial reassignment, delayed raise, denied transfer), but vacated and remanded as to the retaliatory-termination claim, finding disputed factual issues on whether termination was caused by protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether various pre-termination acts (janitorial assignment, denied raise, denied transfer) were materially adverse retaliation | Wheat contends these actions were retaliatory and materially adverse after her FMLA/Title VII activity | Commission argues actions were minor, non-adverse, or legitimate non-retaliatory employment decisions | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff failed to show materially adverse actions for these pre-termination claims (insufficient factual detail/evidence) |
| Whether reassignment to janitorial duties constituted materially adverse action | Wheat: reassignment was degrading and retaliatory after reinstatement | Commission: duties were temporary, routine for reinstated JDS officers, and plaintiff offered no contextual proof of adversity | Court: No genuine dispute shown as to specifics; plaintiff failed to make prima facie case (majority); concurrence dissented, arguing the evidence and defendant’s prior concession sufficed |
| Whether denial/delay of a 4% step increase (performance evaluation) was materially adverse | Wheat: evaluation indicated entitlement to 4% raise and delay was retaliatory | Commission: evaluation explicitly disallowed step increase; Wheat signed and agreed (no appeal); no evidence delay caused material harm | Court: Plaintiff failed to show materially adverse action; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether termination was retaliatory (causal link/but-for causation) | Wheat: discharge followed protected activity; Commission treated her more harshly than others who used force | Commission: discharge based on violent January 2012 incidents and workplace safety concerns | Held: Summary judgment vacated and remanded on termination claim — record raises disputed material facts (inconsistent treatment of employees) sufficient to survive summary judgment on causation/pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defining materially adverse retaliatory actions in context; context-dependent reassignment test)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Davis v. Fort Bend Cnty., 765 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2014) (Title VII retaliation elements under McDonnell Douglas)
- Wilson v. Monarch Paper Co., 939 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1991) (reassignment to janitorial/menial work found extreme and actionable)
- Ion v. Chevron USA Inc., 731 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2013) (FMLA retaliation analyzed under McDonnell Douglas)
- Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2013) (termination is a materially adverse employment action)