Dive Brief:
- A Washington district court erred when it determined the U.S. Postal Service offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for demoting a postmaster, a panel of judges for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Feb. 26 (Lui v. DeJoy).
- The worker, a woman of Chinese ethnicity, alleged she received unwelcome comments from co-workers based on her national origin and, when her supervisor interceded and complained to the HR manager on her behalf, he was pressured to fire or demote her, according to court documents. She was demoted and replaced with a White male postmaster.
- Although USPS argued the worker failed to show she was treated less favorably than “similarly situated” employees, the 9th Circuit found the postmaster only needed to show USPS replaced her with a White male worker to successfully establish her case.
Dive Insight:
In considering the worker’s claim of disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the district court and appeals court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The framework requires the plaintiff to prove a prima facie case of discrimination, after which the defendant may show a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reason for the treatment, whereupon the plaintiff has a chance to provide evidence that the reason is pretext.
The plaintiff’s prima facie case itself is broken into four elements, the court noted: (1) the plaintiff must show she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for the position; (3) that she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) that similarly situated people were treated more favorably — or that the role was filled by someone outside of the protected class.
It is the fourth requirement that caused the confusion in the postmaster’s case, the 9th Circuit noted, with USPS arguing — and the district court agreeing — that the postmaster needed to show she was treated less favorably than “similarly situated” workers outside of her protected class.
“We are sympathetic with the district court with respect to its understanding of the fourth element of the prima facie case,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in the appeals court decision. “Our case law on the fourth element is confusing. As noted above, we have repeatedly recited a truncated version of the test.”
However, precedent of both the U.S. Supreme Court and at least one prior 9th Circuit decision show a plaintiff can satisfy the fourth requirement “merely by showing that she was replaced by someone outside her protected class,” Fletcher wrote, reversing the district court’s decision and remanding it for further review.
The 9th Circuit upheld the district court’s summary judgment for USPS on a retaliation charge, however, finding the worker could not establish a causal connection between the conduct she said led to retaliation and the demotion.
