# Carolyn Sapp v. Patrick Donahoe

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 11, 2013 · 539 F. App'x 590

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521438

## Case

- **Full name:** Carolyn S. SAPP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Patrick R. DONOHOE, Post Master General, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 11, 2013
- **Citations:** 539 F. App'x 590
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Higginbotham
- **Judges:** Higginbotham, Clement, Prado
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521438

## Opinion text

HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur fully in the Court’s opinion, and write separately only to note that a Title VII discrimination claim will fail for lack of comparator evidence only when there is a want of other evidence of discrimination. Comparator evidence is but one form of circumstantial evidence that may be used in proving the ultimate question of discrimination. 1 Accordingly, Sapp’s Title VII discrimination claim fails because she has failed to identify a similarly situated employee not in one of her protected classes who was treated more favorably and she has failed to adduce any other evidence — circumstantial or direct — that the USPS discriminated against her on the basis of her race or gender.
. See, e.g., Black v. Pan Am. Labs., L.L.C., 646 F.3d 254, 278 (5th Cir.2011) (Dennis, J„ dissenting) ("Comparator evidence is only one form of circumstantial evidence that may be useful, but is not necessary, to prove the ultimate question of discrimination vel non, and circumstantial evidence itself is not required where there is direct evidence.").

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521438. Public record. Not legal advice.