Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 220 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. July 25, 2000)

Keywords: Title VII (race and sex discrimination, failure to promote; denial of housing; retaliation)

Introduction: Beverly Thomas sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) under Title VII for race discrimination, sex discrimination and retaliation based on a failure to promote and a denial of housing. The jury found in favor of Thomas and the district court awarded back pay and entered a permanent injunction. The Fifth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part.

Facts: Thomas is a correctional officer with TDCJ. In 1995, she became a Lieutenant. She worked at the Estelle Unit in Huntsville, Texas. Certain classifications of TDCJ employees are permitted to live in state-owned housing rent free (the justification being that if there is a problem at the prison, these officers will be close by).

Thomas requested housing, but she was told that none of the houses was available because they were all undergoing major renovation.

In 1996, a new Warden denied Thomas's request for housing because she was single. In June of 1996, she filed an EEOC complaint alleging gender discrimination. In November of 1996, she sought promotion to Captain. The three positions were filled with white males in December of 1996 and January of 1997. In April of 1997, she filed a second EEOC charge alleging that the denial of the promotion was due to discrimination based on race and gender, and was due to retaliation.

Law:

1. Failure to promote
   1. TDCJ's proffered reason for selecting the three white males for the vacancies is that they had more mid-level supervisory experience and they gave better answers in their interviews.
   2. Strangely, the Court finds sufficient evidence to support the finding of gender and racial discrimination even though the Court's opinion mentions no evidence contradicting these proffered reasons and mentions no evidence of discriminatory animus.
   3. The primary evidence that the Court deems sufficient is that Thomas presented evidence that she was an excellent employee. Also, the position required a minimum of 30 hours college credit. One of the white males hired only had 18 hours. Another white male claimed he had 38 hours, but he actually only had 32 hours.
2. Retaliation
   1. After filing her two EEOC complaints, Thomas alleges that she was retaliated against by being denied promotions or transfers.
   2. Thomas presented several incidents of circumstantial evidence to support her argument that TDCJ was engaging in retaliation:
      1. She was given a house in February of 1998 -- but it was in deplorable condition.
      2. She was disciplined twice after having not been disciplined during the 18 years prior to filing the charges.
      3. A superior shouted at her for filing her charges.
   3. The Court finds that this is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict in Thomas's favor.
3. Denial of housing claim
   1. During the fifth day of her six day trial, Thomas moved to amend her complaint to add an allegation that the denial of housing was based on race as well as sex. The district court granted the motion.
   2. The Court holds this was an abuse of discretion. Her EEOC complaint only alleged sex discrimination with respect to the denial of housing -- and a charge of race discrimination cannot reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge of sex discrimination.
   3. Therefore, the jury verdict in her favor on the housing claim is reversed and the claim remanded for trial. The permanent injunction regarding TDCJ's housing policies is vacated and the award of $107,000 in compensatory damages is vacated as well.
4. Click here to see actual case.