Taylor v. Univ MS Med Ctr

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED

February 9, 2024

No. 23-60246

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Quincy D. Taylor,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

University of Mississippi Medical Center,

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:19-CV-331

______________________________

Before Elrod, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff Quincy Taylor appeals the grant of summary judgment

dismissing his employment-related claims against his former employer, the

University of Mississippi Medical Center (“UMMC”). We AFFIRM.

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

I.

Taylor, a black man, had worked in UMMC’s IT department since

2012, specifically as a Field Support Specialist Associate since 2016. He was

supervised by Stephen Parnell and Russell Donald.

In 2018, Taylor applied for a promotion to Field Support Specialist

Intermediate. A hiring panel interviewed each qualified candidate and

recommended the most qualified to Donald, UMMC’s Director of Field

Services. Marcella Fleming, a black woman, was promoted instead of Taylor.

Fleming had worked at UMMC since 2015, specifically as an End User

Computer Specialist Intermediate since 2016. She had a bachelor’s degree in

Computer Networking and Information Technology, while Taylor only had

an associate’s degree in Network Engineering. The panel and Donald based

their decision on Fleming’s exemplary work performance at UMMC,

favorable interview, educational background, and experience.

After being passed over, Taylor resigned in protest. In his resignation

email on April 4, 2018, Taylor said his last day would be April 27, 2018. About

a week before his designated last day, Taylor emailed Parnell to ask what

factors went into Fleming’s selection. Taylor also complained about his

workload and how he had not advanced as quickly as others at UMMC. He

aired similar grievances in person with Parnell on April 16, 2018. After this

meeting, Taylor asked to rescind his resignation. But Donald and other IT

department leadership decided to accept Taylor’s resignation because they

viewed it as “impulsive and an attempt to negotiate [his] current position.”

After exhausting his administrative remedies,1 Taylor sued UMMC.

Relevant to this appeal, he brought claims under the Rehabilitation Act of

_____________________

1

Even though Taylor technically failed to check the “retaliation” box in his EEOC

charge, his retaliation claim could still “reasonably be expected to grow out of” his initial

2

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, for retaliation, harassment, hostile work environment,

and failure to accommodate. He also brought claims under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, for sex, race, and color

discrimination based on failure to promote. The district court granted

UMMC summary judgment on all claims. Taylor now appeals the dismissal

of his claims for failure to accommodate, retaliation, and failure to promote.

II.

We review a summary judgment de novo. Patel v. Tex. Tech. Univ., 941

F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir. 2019). “The court shall grant summary judgment if

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “This court may affirm the district court’s grant of

summary judgment on any ground supported by the record and presented to

the district court.” Salinas v. R.A. Rogers, Inc., 952 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir.

2020).

III.

A.

We first consider whether the district court erred in dismissing

Taylor’s claim that UMMC failed to reasonably accommodate his disability

under the Rehabilitation Act.

To show failure-to-accommodate, Taylor had to prove (1) he was “a

qualified individual with a disability,” (2) UMMC knew about “the

disability and its consequential limitations,” and (3) UMMC “failed to make

reasonable accommodations.” Sligh v. City of Conroe, 87 F.4th 290, 304 (5th

_____________________

charge of discrimination and thus be up for consideration now. Sanchez v. Standard Brands,

Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 466 (5th Cir. 1970).

3

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

Cir. 2023) (per curiam) (citation omitted). The district court granted

summary judgment because Taylor failed to meet the second element. At

that step, an employer is obligated to “engage in an interactive process . . . to

find the best means of accommodating [a] disability” if the employee first

specifically identifies “the disability and resulting limitations,

and . . . [suggests] reasonable accommodations.” E.E.O.C. v. Chevron

Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 621 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). If the plaintiff is not direct and specific in his

request, then “he can prevail only by showing that the disability, resulting

limitation, and necessary reasonable accommodation were open, obvious,

and apparent to the [employer’s] relevant agents.” Sligh, 87 F.4th at 304

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Taylor argues he met the second element because his supervisors

knew his workload exacerbated his depression, anxiety, and insomnia, yet

they failed to engage with him to determine a reasonable accommodation to

lighten his workload. Taylor first informed UMMC about his disability in his

2012 employment application, in which he stated he was “being treated for

depression.” In 2014, Taylor emailed Donald about suggestions to reduce his

workload, complaining about how mentally and physically exhausting it was

to provide “ongoing [IT] support” to “multiple departments.” After being

passed over for the 2018 promotion, Taylor complained to HR about

“mismanagement of personnel and unequal compensation [that] has led to

burnout, physically and mentally.” In a similar vein, Taylor emailed Parnell

in April 2018, saying, “Although no other technician has had this type of

[increased] workload, I’ve done this willingly for the past two years in order

to support the mission of [UMMC] while under much stress.” He later met

with Parnell to “air[] out [his] grievances and told him the reason why [he]

was resigning was [because of his] workload.” Taylor claims that in that

meeting, he also told Parnell that he was receiving treatment for depression.

4

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

Even assuming UMMC knew about Taylor’s depression, however,

he never tied this disability directly to suggested accommodations. See

Windham v. Harris County, 875 F.3d 229, 236 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Mere

knowledge of the disability is not enough; the service provider must also have

understood the limitations the plaintiff experienced as a result of that

disability.” (cleaned up) (citation omitted)). His 2012 application, for

example, did not identify the “consequential limitations” of his depression.

Sligh, 87 F.4th at 304. Likewise, Taylor’s workload grievances to Donald and

Parnell did not tie his exhaustion to his depression, nor did Taylor “suggest

[any] reasonable accommodation[]” based on that disability. Chevron Phillips

Chem. Co., 570 F.3d at 621. Taylor instead met with Parnell in April 2018 to

explain why he was resigning, not to request accommodations based on a

disability. In fact, Taylor admitted he never expressly told any supervisor that

he was disabled and needed a specific accommodation.

Taylor’s piecemeal and vague complaints of exhaustion were not

“direct and specific” requests sufficient to put UMMC on notice that he

requested and suggested reasonable accommodations based on a disability.

See Sligh, 87 F.4th at 304; Windham, 875 F.3d at 236–37. And because Taylor

does not argue his disability and necessary accommodations were “open,

obvious, and apparent,” he cannot prevail on his failure-to-accommodate

claim. Sligh, 87 F.4th at 304–05.2

Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted on Taylor’s

failure-to-accommodate claim.

_____________________

2

Taylor also contends that he can prove disability discrimination for the same

reasons he can prove failure to accommodate. We decline to consider this passing argument

as it is inadequately briefed. Davis v. Davis, 826 F.3d 258, 266 (5th Cir. 2016).

5

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

B.

We next consider whether the district court erred in dismissing

Taylor’s retaliation claim.

Both Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit employers from

discriminating “against any individual because such individual has opposed

any act or practice made unlawful by th[e] Act[s].” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)

(Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”)); 29 U.S.C. § 794(d)

(incorporating the ADA’s retaliation standard for Rehabilitation Act

claims); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Title VII).

Because Taylor cannot point to any direct evidence of retaliation,3 he

must satisfy the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test. January v. City of

Huntsville, 74 F.4th 646, 653 (5th Cir. 2023) (analyzing Rehabilitation Act

retaliation claim); Saketkoo v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 31 F.4th 990,

999–1000 (5th Cir. 2022) (analyzing Title VII retaliation claim). To do so,

he must first establish “a prima facie case by showing (1) engagement in

protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal

connection between the two.” January, 74 F.4th at 653. When claiming

protected opposition, as Taylor does here, “an employee must at least have

referred to conduct that could plausibly be considered discriminatory in

intent or effect, thereby alerting the employer of its discriminatory

practices.” Saketkoo, 31 F.4th at 1000 (citation omitted). Therefore, if Taylor

never opposed purported unlawful conduct by UMMC, then he cannot

maintain a retaliation claim. See ibid.

_____________________

3

That is, Taylor points to no “evidence which, if believed, proves [retaliation]

without inference or presumption.” Brown v. E. Miss. Elec. Power Ass’n, 989 F.2d 858, 861

(5th Cir. 1993).

6

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

Taylor offers three instances of protected activity: (1) his resignation

for being discriminatorily passed over for a promotion; (2) his grievances to

Parnell for being discriminatorily passed over; and (3) his requests for a

reasonable accommodation. According to Taylor, summary judgment was

improper because we must assume a jury could believe the “timing” of his

resignation and grievances “demonstrates a protest against a discriminatory

action,” and that his “attempt to negotiate his current position” was a

request for a reasonable accommodation. We disagree. Taylor’s argument

overlooks that a dispute of fact is genuine only “if the evidence is sufficient

for a reasonable jury to return a verdict” in his favor. Ahders v. SEI Priv. Tr.

Co., 982 F.3d 312, 315 (5th Cir. 2020) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

No reasonable jury could find in Taylor’s favor based on these conclusory

arguments supported by no evidence.

First, consider Taylor’s resignation and “airing his grievances” in

protest for being passed over for the promotion.4 His resignation letter did

not specify why he was resigning, let alone say that his resignation was based

on perceived discrimination. His grievances to Parnell simply expressed

displeasure for being passed over twice in favor of another candidate, but

Taylor never alleged those decisions were discriminatory. He instead asked

about “what skills [he] could sharpen to become a better candidate” and

“what factors ultimately lead to [the other candidate’s] selection.” Rather

than protesting discriminatory hiring, Taylor lamented his increased

workload and that his “hard work and willingness to maintain support for

_____________________

4

The district court found that “airing his grievances” was sufficient evidence that

he engaged in a protected opposition activity, relying on Alkhawaldeh v. Dow Chem. Co., 851

F.3d 422, 428 n.23 (5th Cir. 2017). The plaintiff in Alkhawaldeh, however, presented

evidence that his grievances were complaints about discriminatory conduct—specifically,

“racially insensitive remarks.” See id. at 428. By contrast, Taylor’s grievances to Parnell

mentioned no alleged discrimination.

7

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

[UMMC’s] customers has gone un[n]oticed and unappreciated.” Beyond

Taylor’s conclusory allegation that Fleming received the promotion because

she was a “bright skinned female,” nothing suggests Taylor complained

about discrimination to UMMC. While Taylor later stated at his deposition

that his “resignation was, in effect, a protest to the discrimination that [he]

felt [he] was facing, to raise a flag to get some attention,” no evidence

indicates he communicated this belief to UMMC.

Next, consider Taylor’s purported request for an accommodation. He

points to his April 2018 grievance email and meeting with Parnell as requests

for an accommodation. As discussed above, however, these grievances

cannot reasonably be perceived as specific requests for an accommodation.

See supra Part III.A.

Without evidence that Taylor either complained of discrimination or

requested an accommodation, nothing suggests he engaged in a protected

activity. See Saketkoo, 31 F.4th at 1000 (noting evidence of

“general . . . hostility is not enough”; “an employee must at least have

referred to conduct that could plausibly be considered discriminatory in

intent or effect, thereby alerting the employer of its discriminatory practices”

(citation omitted)); see also Harris-Childs v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 169 F.

App’x 913, 916 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (finding no protected activity

where plaintiff’s complaints did not allege that she was treated unfairly based

on a protected status).

Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted on Taylor’s

retaliation claim.

C.

Finally, we consider whether the district court erred in dismissing

Taylor’s Title VII discrimination claim based on UMMC’s promotion of

Fleming instead of him.

8

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

Taylor’s failure-to-promote claim must satisfy the McDonnell Douglas

test. See Autry v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 704 F.3d 344, 346–47 (5th Cir.

2013). At the prima facie stage, Taylor must show (1) he was a member of a

protected class, (2) he sought and was qualified for an open position, (3) he

“was rejected for the position,” and (4) UMMC either “hired a person

outside of [his] protected class or continued to seek applicants with”

Taylor’s qualifications. McMullin v. Miss. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 782 F.3d 251,

258 (5th Cir. 2015). If Taylor makes these showings, then the burden shifts

to UMMC to “articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its

decision not to promote [Taylor].” Ibid. If it does, the burden shifts back to

Taylor to present evidence that UMMC’s reasons for not promoting him

were pretextual, ibid.—for instance, evidence that he was “clearly better

qualified (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than [Fleming].”

Roberson-King v. La. Workforce Comm’n, Off. of Workforce Dev., 904 F.3d 377,

381 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Taylor

may also show that UMMC’s “proffered explanation is false or ‘unworthy

of credence.’” Ibid. (citation omitted).

The district court ruled that Taylor’s discrimination claims failed at

the pretext stage. Specifically, Taylor identified no evidence

“demonstrat[ing] that UMMC’s reasons for not selecting him for the Field

Support Specialist-Intermediate position were pretextual.” We agree.

Even assuming Taylor made a prima facie case, UMMC provided a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promoting Fleming over Taylor.

Donald and the hiring panel thought Fleming was more qualified than Taylor

based on her prior exemplary work performance at UMMC, her favorable

interview, educational background, and extensive experience. These are

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the decision. See Reeves v.

Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000) (explaining the

9

Case: 23-60246 Document: 00517061698 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/09/2024

No. 23-60246

burden to present a nondiscriminatory reason “is one of production, not

persuasion; it ‘can involve no credibility assessment’” (citation omitted)).

Taylor failed to present evidence that these proffered reasons were

mere pretext for discrimination. Rather than attack the UMMC’s reasons,

Taylor instead points to inconsistencies in Fleming’s employment

application with respect to her years of work experience. He also questions

whether Fleming’s prior experience was as relevant as his to the Field

Support Specialist Intermediate position. These factors, however, do not

suggest pretext.

We have repeatedly held that “differences in qualifications between

job candidates are generally not probative evidence of discrimination unless

those differences are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute

among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly

better qualified for the position at issue.” Deines v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective &

Regul. Servs., 164 F.3d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Roberson-King,

904 F.3d at 381. So, Taylor must point to evidence suggesting he was clearly

more qualified than Fleming or that UMMC’s proffered reasons for

promoting her were clearly unworthy of belief. Deines, 164 F.3d at 279. He

has not done so. Employers can generally “weigh the qualifications of

prospective employees, so long as they are not motivated by

[discrimination].” Roberson-King, 904 F.3d at 382 (citation omitted). Taylor

has not presented any evidence that UMMC chose Fleming over Taylor

based on sex, race, or color. Accordingly, summary judgment for UMMC

was proper on this claim as well.

IV.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

10