allowing a plaintiff to survive summary judgment without evidence of a comparator employee because the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is an “evidentiary tool” not “a substantive standard of liability”
How later courts described this case
- allowing a plaintiff to survive summary judgment without evidence of a comparator employee because the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is an “evidentiary tool” not “a substantive standard of liability”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 25-10982 Document: 70-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 25-10982
FILED
June 1, 2026
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Joe Martin Bravo, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Dallas Independent School District; Tarrant
Appraisal District,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:23-CV-1596
______________________________
Before Wiener, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge:
The Dallas Independent School District fired Joe Bravo after six
students complained that he made racially insensitive remarks in the
classroom. He sued, alleging that the District discriminated against him
based on his Mexican-American ancestry, violating Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. The district court granted the District summary judgment,
reasoning that Bravo failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792 (1973). We AFFIRM.
Case: 25-10982 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2026
No. 25-10982
I.
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race,
ethnicity, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). “[D]irect evidence of
discriminatory intent is rare.” Saketkoo v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 31
F.4th 990, 997 (5th Cir. 2022). So an employee usually “proves [their] claim
[through] circumstantial evidence.” Id. If they use circumstantial evidence,
they must satisfy the McDonell Douglas burden-shifting framework to survive
summary judgment. Id.
Under this framework, an employee must first establish a prime facie
case. Id. This means they must offer sufficient evidence that they (1) are a
member of a protected class, (2) were qualified for their position, (3) suffered
an adverse employment action, and (4) were treated less favorably than
“other similarly situated employees who were not members of the protected
class, under nearly identical circumstances.” Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574
F.3d 253, 259 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation modified).
The district court granted summary judgment at the fourth prong,
because Bravo “fail[ed] to offer any evidence of a similarly situated
comparator.” Bravo v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 3:23-CV-01596, 2025 WL
2163272, at *8 (N.D. Tex. July 30, 2025).1 He appeals.
II.
Bravo concedes that our precedent required him to show a similarly
situated comparator. But he argues that a recent Supreme Court decision,
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, overruled our previous cases that
required him to do so. 605 U.S. 303 (2025). We disagree.
_____________________
1
“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Barrett v.
Atl. Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375, 382 (5th Cir. 1996).
2
Case: 25-10982 Document: 70-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2026
No. 25-10982
Our rule of orderliness binds us to a previous panel’s decision “absent
an intervening change in the law.” Texas v. United States, 126 F.4th 392, 406
(5th Cir. 2025). A Supreme Court decision may qualify as an intervening
change, but the “decision . . . must unequivocally overrule prior precedent.”
Id. (citation modified). The Court may do so implicitly when a decision
“fundamentally changes the focus of the relevant analysis.” In re Bonvillian
Marine Serv., Inc., 19 F.4th 787, 792 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). But
this happens only if “the changed analysis clearly applies to the case before
us, such that we are unequivocally directed . . . to overrule the” prior panel’s
decision. Martinelli v. Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., 65 F.4th 231, 234 (5th Cir.
2023) (citation modified).
In Ames, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule that
required “majority-group plaintiffs . . . to produce certain types of
evidence . . . that would not otherwise be required to make out a prima facie
case.” 605 U.S. at 311. And the Court generally cautioned against “inflexible
formulations of the prima facie standard.” Id. at 311 (citation modified).
Of course, if our previous decisions placed a greater evidentiary
burden on some groups, Ames might implicitly overrule them. But Ames’s
clarification of the Title VII analysis does not clearly apply here. And our
McDonnell Douglas authority is flexible enough to survive Ames. Indeed, our
court has already cautioned that our review of whether a comparator
employee is similarly situated “cannot be too rigid.” Moore v. Univ. Miss.
Med. Ctr., 719 F. App’x 381, 385 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Lee, 574 F.3d at 260
n.26).
3
Case: 25-10982 Document: 70-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/01/2026
No. 25-10982
Hence, our previous decisions that require a similarly situated
comparator still bind us.2 To survive summary judgment, Bravo must offer
evidence that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee
who was not a member of his protected class. E.g., Saketkoo, 31 F.4th at 998.
Because he cannot, he fails to carry his prima facie burden under McDonnell
Douglas, and the district court properly granted summary judgment.3 We
AFFIRM.
_____________________
2
Contra Tynes v. Fla. Dep’t of Juv. Just., 88 F.4th 939, 944–45 (11th Cir. 2023)
(allowing a plaintiff to survive summary judgment without evidence of a comparator
employee because the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is an “evidentiary tool” not “a
substantive standard of liability”); see also Awe v. Harris Health Sys., 163 F.4th 969, 975–76
(5th Cir. 2026) (Elrod, C.J., concurring) (“[T]he Fifth Circuit’s reading of the
McDonnell Douglas standard [is] foreign to both Title VII and Rule 56, [and] puts on
blinders to the various ways . . . a plaintiff could prove [their] claim.” (citation modified));
Nall v. BNSF Ry. Co., 917 F.3d 335, 349–50 (5th Cir. 2019) (Costa, J., specially
concurring); Green v. HCTec Partners, L.L.C., No. 24-20554, 2026 WL 839112, at *6–8
(5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2026) (Oldham, J., concurring in the judgment).
3
Because Bravo’s Title VII claim fails this threshold inquiry, we do not reach his
other arguments.
4