Erica Moore v. University of Mississippi

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

No. 17-60348

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2018

ERICA MOORE, Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNIVERSITY MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN DOES,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:16-CV-52

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON:*

Erica Moore was terminated from her position as a billing specialist at

the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s School of Dentistry after she left

departmental money sitting out on top of her desk when she left her office and

$100 went missing. She sued the University of Mississippi Medical Center

(“UMMC”), bringing claims for race discrimination in violation of Title VII and

§ 1981 as well as breach of contract. She alleged that, as an African-American

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

woman, she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated white woman

who was not terminated after she, too, left money unsecured that then went

missing. The district court dismissed Moore’s § 1981 and breach-of-contract

claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and granted summary judgment

in UMMC’s favor on her Title VII claim, concluding that Moore had failed to

establish that she and her purported comparator were similarly situated. We

agree and affirm.

I.

A.

The following facts are not in dispute. Erica Moore (“Moore”), an African-

American woman, began working for UMMC in 2007. She held several

positions during her tenure there, including, as is relevant here, serving as a

billing specialist for the school of dentistry for two years before her termination

in 2014. As a billing specialist, Moore was responsible for counting and

depositing the money collected from each department. Every evening, each

department would leave its money with Moore’s supervisor, Shavonda

Greenfield, and every morning, Moore would collect the money from

Greenfield, who kept it locked in a safe overnight, and take the money to her

own office to count. Moore’s office was secured by a keypad lock on the door.

Additionally, her desk had a locking drawer and she had a lockbox in which

she could secure the money while it was in her office. Moore had been trained

to not leave money sitting out and unsecured if she left the area.

On October 20, 2014, Moore had the money that had been collected from

the other departments on October 16 and 17. After counting the money and

verifying that she had the full amounts, Moore took the money from the 16th

to the front desk for the courier to pick up, leaving the money from the 17th

out on her desk. Before returning to her office, she stopped to heat up her

lunch. When she returned to her office after having been away for

2

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

approximately 10 minutes, she recounted the money from the 17th and

discovered that $100 was missing. After looking unsuccessfully for the missing

money, she e-mailed Greenfield to report it. Greenfield then reported the

missing money to her supervisor, Stacy Brookerd. Brookerd reported the

incident to the human resources (“HR”) department. Rebecca Keefer-Rieves,

the HR representative for the school of dentistry, instructed Brookerd to

contact the campus police. Brookerd did, and the police investigated but were

unable to determine who had taken the missing money. The police then turned

the case back over to the UMMC HR department.

On November 12, 2014, Moore was suspended without pay pending the

outcome of an HR investigation. During the investigation, Moore admitted

that she had left the money unsecured on her desk when she left her office.

Keefer-Rieves ultimately recommended to Barbara Smith Watson, the Director

of Employee Relations, that Moore be terminated due to “inefficiency,

negligence in the performance of duty or lack of attention to work,” which the

UMMC Faculty and Staff Handbook identified as grounds for employee

disciplinary action up to and including discharge. Specifically, Keefer-Rieves

cited Moore’s failure to secure money before leaving her office as the basis for

termination. On November 21, 2014, Keefer-Rieves wrote to Moore notifying

her that it had been determined that Moore’s actions violated UMMC policies

and protocols and that her employment was therefore terminated.

B.

Stacy Moore (“Stacy”), a white woman, began working as a patient

services coordinator in the Oral-Maxillfacial Surgical Department of the

UMMC School of Dentistry in 2012. As a patient services coordinator, her

duties included obtaining insurance and medical information from patients

and collecting co-pays. She was the custodian of a petty cash fund, which is

money given by UMMC directly to an employee for use in the course of their

3

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

employment and then returned to UMMC when that employee leaves his or

her position. Stacy’s supervisor, Laura Wells, had issued her a personal check

from UMMC for $125. Stacy cashed the check and used the $125 to make

change for patients who paid for services with cash. Because the check was

issued to Stacy personally, she was responsible for replacing any money that

went missing.

On September 24, 2014, Stacy reported to Wells that $95 of her petty

cash was missing. Stacy had received the $125 check approximately three

weeks before, and noticed the missing funds on the 23rd. The money was kept

in a drawer accessible to others and was often left unsecured during business

hours. The drawer was locked at the end of each day, but Stacy could not say

whether the drawer had been locked at the end of the day on September 20—

the last business day before the missing funds were discovered—because she

had left early that day for a medical appointment. Wells reported the missing

money to the UMMC police department. The police investigated but were

unable to determine who had taken the money and sent the case back to

UMMC. The matter was not referred to HR and no disciplinary action was

taken.

C.

On December 12, 2014, Erica Moore filed a charge of racial

discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”). The EEOC issued Moore a notice of right to sue, and she filed suit

against UMMC on January 28, 2016. 1 The complaint alleged race

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

1 The complaint also named the University of Mississippi and John Does as

defendants. The University of Mississippi was later dismissed pursuant an agreement

between the parties, and Moore never amended her complaint to identify the Doe defendants.

4

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

§ 2000e et seq., race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 2 and breach

of contract. In September 2016, the district court dismissed the § 1981 and

breach-of-contract claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Then, in

April 2017, the district court granted UMMC’s motion for summary judgment

on the Title VII claim. Moore timely appealed, and now contends that the

district court erred by dismissing and granting summary judgment on her

claims.

II.

A.

Moore first contends that the district court erred by granting summary

judgment on her Title VII claim. We review a district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court and

viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Rogers

v. Pearland Indep. Sch. Dist., 827 F.3d 403, 406 (5th Cir. 2016). “Summary

judgment is appropriate when ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

Moore argues that the district court erred by failing to view the evidence

in the light most favorable to her and that, when so viewed, there are genuine

issues of material fact as to whether UMMC treated her less favorably than

another similarly situated employee. We see no such genuine issues of

material fact and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, a

Title VII plaintiff first bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of

discrimination. Id. at 408 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

2 Moore’s complaint alleged race discrimination under theories of both disparate

treatment and disparate impact. However, she has abandoned her disparate impact theory

and proceeds on a theory of disparate treatment only.

5

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

792, 802–04 (1973)). If that burden is met, there is a presumption of

discrimination and the burden then shifts to the employer “to articulate some

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s [adverse employment

action].” Id. (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). If the employer

satisfies that burden, “the presumption of discrimination ‘drops out of the

picture,’” and the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the

employer’s proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination, id. (quoting Reeves

v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000)), or that her

protected characteristic was a “motivating factor” for the employment decision,

id. (quoting Alvarado v. Tex. Rangers, 492 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2007)).

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII, a

plaintiff must show four things: (1) that she is a member of a protected class;

(2) that she was qualified for the position at issue; (3) that she was the subject

of an adverse employment action; and (4) that she was “treated less favorably

because of [her] membership in that protected class than were 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). The first three elements are not in dispute here; the parties dispute

only whether Moore established that a similarly situated non-minority

employee was treated more favorably under nearly identical circumstances.

Accordingly, the first issue in this appeal turns on whether Moore’s chosen

comparator—Stacy Moore—was in fact similarly situated to her.

A comparator will be considered “similarly situated” to the plaintiff if the

two “held the same job responsibilities”; worked for “the same supervisor or

had their employment status determined by the same person”; had “essentially

comparable violation histories”; and “critically, [where] the plaintiff’s conduct

that drew the adverse employment decision [was] ‘nearly identical’ to that of

the proffered comparator who allegedly drew dissimilar employment

6

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

decisions.” Id. at 260. Employees who had different supervisors, worked for

different divisions of a company, held different responsibilities, or who were

the subjects of adverse employment actions that were either too remote in time

from one another or the results of dissimilar violations will generally not be

considered “similarly situated.” Id. at 259–60. At bottom, the plaintiff must

be able to establish that “the employment actions at issue were taken ‘under

nearly identical circumstances.’” Id. at 260 (quoting Little v. Republic Ref. Co.,

924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir. 1991)). Of course, we do not read “‘nearly identical’

as synonymous with ‘identical,’” as that would create an “essentially

insurmountable” hurdle for Title VII plaintiffs. Id. Accordingly, our review

cannot be too rigid, and the relevant differences must be more than “marginal.”

See id. at 260 n.26. For example, “[a]s the Supreme Court has instructed, the

similitude of employee violations may turn on the ‘comparable seriousness’ of

the offenses for which discipline was meted out and not necessarily on how a

company codes an infraction under its rules and regulations.” Id. at 261

(quoting McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 283 n.11

(1976)).

Here, Moore failed to establish that she and Stacy were similarly

situated. First, the two held different positions with different job

responsibilities. Id. at 260–61 (stating that employees with different job

responsibilities are not similarly situated). Moore was a billing specialist,

whose responsibilities included balancing daily accounts and preparing bank

deposits. Stacy was a patient services coordinator, whose responsibilities

included various administrative tasks pertaining to patient intake or

outpatient services, such as obtaining insurance information and collecting co-

pays. Second, the two had different supervisors and had their employment

statuses determined by different people. See Lee, 574 F.3d at 259 (“Employees

with different supervisors . . . generally will not be deemed similarly

7

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

situated.”); Little, 924 F.2d at 97 (holding that circumstances of two employees

were not “nearly identical” where they had different supervisors). Moore was

supervised by Greenfield, who in turn reported the missing money to her

supervisor, Brookerd. Brookerd then referred the matter to HR, and Smith

Watson, the Director of Employee Relations, made the ultimate decision to

terminate Moore pursuant to the recommendation of Keefer-Rieves, the HR

representative for the school of dentistry. Stacy was supervised by Wells, who

concluded that Stacy’s conduct had not violated any UMMC policy and thus

did not refer the matter to HR. Smith Watson, who ultimately made the

decision to terminate Moore, was not even aware of Stacy’s missing petty cash

until she received Moore’s EEOC charge in this case.

Moore contends that, despite their different job responsibilities and

supervisors, she and Stacy were similarly situated because they were treated

differently for nearly identical conduct. She argues that she and Stacy were

both custodians of UMMC funds; both lefts funds unattended that then came

up short; and that she was terminated while no disciplinary action was taken

against Stacy. However, as the district court concluded, the undisputed

evidence is clear that Moore and Stacy were custodians of different categories

of funds. And, as elaborated below, the employment actions at issue were not

taken under nearly identical circumstances and were not of comparable

seriousness.

Moore was responsible for collecting, counting, and depositing “patient

cash”—that is, money paid by patients to the various departments at the school

of dentistry. According to her own testimony, Moore had been trained to secure

those funds in either a locking desk drawer or lock box before leaving her office.

Furthermore, UMMC’s Cash Policy provides that “cash funds” are to be “stored

in a secure location.” Stacy, however, was responsible for “petty cash”—money

issued by UMMC directly to her by personal check to be used in making change

8

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

for patients. Under UMMC’s separate Petty Cash Policy, the custodian of a

petty cash fund is responsible for maintaining the fund “at the approved

amount at all times” and may “be held responsible for reimbursing UMMC for

missing funds.” 3 The Petty Cash Policy recommends that the custodian use

some form of “internal controls” to maintain the fund at the approved amount,

including, but not limited to, “[s]ignature logs,” “[l]imited employee access to

[the] safe or locked drawer where funds are kept,” or monthly self-audits. The

policy also provides that “departmental personnel”—not just the custodian—

should “take the necessary precautions to ensure that the petty cash fund is

properly safeguarded,” including “ensuring that the fund is not left unattended

and is locked up after normal business hours.” Furthermore, according to the

testimony of Brookerd and Smith Watson, patient cash is treated differently

from petty cash, and it is not a violation of policy to leave petty cash where

others can access it.

In sum, Moore directly violated the UMMC Cash Policy and her own

training by leaving patient cash unsecured and sitting out on her desk while

away from her office. Stacy, on the other hand, did not directly violate the

Petty Cash Policy by leaving her petty cash unsecured. Furthermore, the

drawer in which the cash was kept was locked at the end of each business day,

and although Stacy had left early on the last business day before the missing

funds were discovered, it was, according to the Petty Cash Policy, the

responsibility of all “departmental personnel” to ensure that petty cash funds

are “locked up after normal business hours.” Accordingly, and critically,

Stacy’s conduct, which did not draw an adverse employment action, was not of

“comparable seriousness” to Moore’s, which did, and their conduct was

therefore not “nearly identical.” Lee, 574 F.3d at 260–61 (quoting McDonald,

3 There is no similar provision for the reimbursement of missing patient cash.

9

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

427 U.S. at 283 n.11); see also id. at 260 (“[C]ritically, the plaintiff’s conduct

that drew the adverse employment decision must have been ‘nearly identical’

to that of the proffered comparator who allegedly drew dissimilar employment

decisions.” (quoting Perez v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 395 F.3d 206, 213

(5th Cir. 2004))). Because “the ‘difference between the plaintiff’s conduct and

that of [the employee] alleged to be similarly situated accounts for the

difference in treatment received from the employer,’ the employees are not

similarly situated for the purposes of an employment discrimination analysis.”

Id. (quoting Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212, 221 (5th Cir. 2001)).

Accordingly, Moore failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether she and Stacy were similarly situated. As the district court held,

Moore therefore failed to establish prima facie case of race discrimination, and

UMMC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

B.

Moore next contends that the district court erred by dismissing her §

1981 and breach-of-contract claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

“We review rulings on motions to dismiss de novo.” Nelson v. Univ. of Tex. at

Dall., 535 F.3d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 2008).

Moore contends that federal jurisdiction over her § 1981 and breach-of-

contract claims is proper because: (1) Mississippi has waived sovereign

immunity for contract-based claims; (2) federal courts have supplemental

jurisdiction over state-law claims arising out of the same nucleus of operative

fact as federal claims; and (3) Mississippi has waived sovereign immunity to

the extent that it has liability insurance. We find those arguments unavailing

and affirm the district court’s dismissal. 4

4 The parties do not dispute that UMMC is an arm of the state and thus entitled to

assert sovereign immunity. See McGarry v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 355 F. App’x 853, 856

10

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

As to the breach-of-contract claim, Moore is correct that Mississippi has

generally waived sovereign immunity to contract-based claims. “The general

rule is that when the legislature authorizes the State’s entry into a contract,

the State necessarily waives its immunity from suit for a breach of contract.”

Stewart ex rel. Womack v. City of Jackson, 804 So. 2d 1041, 1049 (Miss. 2002)

(quoting Gulfside Casino P’ship v. Miss. State Port Auth., 757 So. 2d 250, 256

(Miss. 2000)). However, a “general waiver of sovereign immunity . . . does not

constitute a waiver by the state of its constitutional immunity under the

Eleventh Amendment from suit in federal court.” Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehab.

Servs. v. Fla. Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 150 (1981) (quotation marks

omitted); see also Magnolia Venture Capital Corp v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 151

F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, “we may find waiver of a state’s

Eleventh Amendment immunity in only the most exacting circumstances.”

Magnolia Venture, 151 F.3d at 443. A state’s consent to suit in federal court

must “be unequivocally expressed.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984). While Mississippi has waived its state

sovereign immunity to suit in state court for breach of contract, there is no

unequivocal statement of its intent to also waive its Eleventh Amendment

immunity to suit in federal court. See Magnolia Venture, 151 F.3d at 445.

Furthermore, supplemental jurisdiction cannot overcome a state’s

Eleventh Amendment immunity. As a general matter, of course, a federal

court does “have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so

related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they

form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But the

Supreme Court has refused to “read § 1367(a) to authorize district courts to

(5th Cir. 2009) (“The appellee, as an arm of the University of Mississippi, is an agency of the

state and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity absent waiver or abrogation.”).

11

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

exercise jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting States, even though

nothing in the statute expressly excludes such claims.” Raygor v. Regents of

Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541 (2002). Accordingly, “§ 1367(a)’s grant of

jurisdiction does not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants.”

Id. at 542.

As to the § 1981 claim, that, too, is barred. Section 1981 does not waive

a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Sessions v. Rusk State Hosp., 648

F.2d 1066, 1069 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (“Unlike Title VII, Section 1981 contains

no congressional waiver of the state’s [E]leventh [A]mendment immunity.”).

Moore’s final argument is that dismissal before discovery was premature

because she has not yet had the opportunity to discover whether UMMC

maintains liability insurance that, she contends, would waive sovereign

immunity as to both claims. She relies on a provision of the Mississippi Tort

Claims Act (“MTCA”), which provides that “[i]f liability coverage, either

through insurance policies or self-insurance retention is in effect, immunity

from suit shall be waived only to the limit of liability established by the

insurance or self-insurance program.” Miss. Code. § 11-46-17(2). But the

MTCA does not waive Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from suit in

federal court. 5 Miss. Code § 11-46-5(4) (“Nothing contained in this chapter

shall be construed to waive the immunity of the state from suit in federal courts

guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States.”); Black v. N. Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 594 (5th Cir. 2006) (“The

MTCA also preserves all immunities granted by the Eleventh Amendment of

5 Furthermore, we note that the particular provision of the MTCA on which Moore

relies applied only “[b]efore July 1, 1993.” Miss. Code § 11-46-17(2). Additionally, the

Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the existence of insurance is relevant only to the

amount of liability, not its existence; in other words, insurance does not itself waive sovereign

immunity. See Maxwell v. Jackson Cty., 768 So. 2d 900, 902–03 (Miss. 2000); Leslie v. City

of Biloxi, 758 So. 2d 430, 434 (Miss. 2000).

12

Case: 17-60348 Document: 00514379056 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/08/2018

No. 17-60348

the United States Constitution.”). Accordingly, dismissal of both the § 1981

and breach-of-contract claims was proper.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

13