SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRACTICE

MARGARET A. HARRIS
Butler & Harris
1007 Heights Blvd
Houston, Texas 77008
713-526-5677
margie@butlerharris.com

State Bar of Texas

21st ANNUAL
ADVANCED EMPLOYMENT LAW COURSE
January 17 - 18, 2013
Dallas

CHAPTER 10
Summary Judgment Practice Chapter 10

Table of Contents
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Summary Judgment – A Quick Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. The Rule Itself.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. The Standard, and the Judge’s Function in Rule 56 Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

C. Inferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

D. Motive or State of Mind.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

III. Proving Discrimination – Rarely Easy, Rarely Direct Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

IV. The Defendant's Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. The Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. The “Qualified for the Position” Prong is Minimal Burden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Elements of Prima Facie Case Not So Rigid As to Disregard Statement Indicative of Bias Even if
Uttered Post Decision.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. For Retaliation Claim, Need Underlying Complaint to be About Statutory Violation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. The Defendant’s Burden to Articulate a Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

V. The Plaintiff's Response -- Proving Pretext. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Evidence That the Employer’s Stated Reasons Are Not Believable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Inconsistent or Post-Hoc Explanations for the Employer’s Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Claim of “Clearly Better Qualified” Requires Evidence of Successful Candidate’s Relative

Lack of Qualifications.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. But, Proof of “Clearly Better Qualified” Is Not Necessary – Even in Selection Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Contradictions in The Employer’s Testimony About the Plaintiff’s Competency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6. “Nearly Identical” Not So Rigid as “Identical” – Otherwise, Barrier to Liability Would Be

Insurmountable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

7. Plaintiff’s Testimony May be Sufficient, But Not A Conclusory Denial of Misconduct.. . . . . . . . . . . 11

8. Fact Question on Sufficiency of Notice Under the FMLA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

9. Fact Question on Need for Security Clearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

10. Causation – Retaliation – Temporal Proximity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

11. Inconsistent Statements About Importance of Qualifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Summary Judgment Practice Chapter 10

12. Irregularities in Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

13. The Employer’s Violation of its Own Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

14. The Provoked Insubordination Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

VI. The Whack-a-Mole “Pretext Plus” Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

VII. Substantive Law Issues.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A. Evidence Sufficient to Support Inference of Discriminatory Bias. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

B. The “Stray Remarks” Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

C. Adverse Employment Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

D. When Decision Tainted by Non-Decisionmaker’s Bias (so-called “Cat’s Paw”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

E. Sufficiently Severe or Pervasive – Age-Based and Religious-Based Harassment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

F. Harassment of Others Not Relevant to Question of Severity of Pervasiveness of Harassment Endured by

Plaintiff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

G. Need for Employer Notice of Harassment – And When Employee Must Complain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

VIII. Issues in Cases Under the Americans with Disabilities Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A. Proof of Pretext Allows Trial for Retaliation Claim, but Not Discrimination Claim.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

B. An Employer's Duty to Engage in Individualized Inquiries -- And Work Towards Accommodation. . . . . . 21

C. Is the Plaintiff Qualified? An Employer's Duty to Work Towards Accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21