Background
Alfy Mayes, a former jailor for the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office, filed a second federal lawsuit alleging retaliation for filing a prior discrimination suit. The County took three disciplinary actions against Mayes, including suspensions and a termination recommendation, citing legitimate reasons related to his conduct during incidents involving inmates. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, finding the reasons were legitimate and non-retaliatory.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. To establish a prima facie Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection. Once the employer proffers legitimate reasons, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce substantial evidence that the reasons are pretextual. The court found that Mayes offered only disagreement with the County’s assessment of his performance and failed to raise any material dispute of fact regarding the underlying incidents or the falsity of the County’s reasons. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff forfeited a cat’s paw theory argument by failing to raise it in the district court.
Our anti-discrimination laws do not require an employer to make proper decisions, only non-retaliatory ones.
LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 391 (2007)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that mere disagreement with an employer’s performance assessment does not create a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment in retaliation cases. It also confirms that arguments not raised in the district court are forfeited on appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download