Okoye v. Univ. Texas Houston Health Science Ctr., 00-20021

• Decision Date: 03 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-20021,00-20021
• Citation: 245 F.3d 507
• Parties: (5th Cir. 2001) CECILIA OKOYE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER; Et Al, Defendants, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER; Defendant - Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 507

245 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2001)

CECILIA OKOYE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER; Et Al, Defendants, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER; Defendant - Appellee.

No. 00-20021

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT

April 3, 2001

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

Before DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and POGUE¹, District Judge.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

Cecilia Okoye ("Okoye") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq, claim against the University of Texas Houston Health Science Center; et al ("UTHHSC"). We affirm.

I

UTHHSC and the Harris County Sheriff's Department entered into a contract in which Harris County paid UTHHSC to provide a medical director, physicians, and specialty nursing services for the detention facilities located in Harris County. Pursuant to the contract, the employees hired by UTHHSC reported to the Medical Director of the Harris County detention facilities, Dr. Michael Seale ("Seale"), who was a UTHHSC employee.² While Seale had the authority to impose certain disciplinary sanctions, such as suspension with pay, the contract allocated the ultimate decision-making authority regarding who was allowed access to the detention facilities to the Sheriff or his designee. Section 6(c) of the contract contained the following provision:

[a]ll personnel provided by the University are subject to review and approval by the Sheriff or his designee. Should any such personnel become undesirable, as determined by the Sheriff or his designee, the Sheriff or his designee will recommend in writing to the University that such person be removed, and the University will forthwith remove such person from the Detention Facilities.

UTHHSC employed Okoye as a professional nurse practitioner for the Harris County jail's female section. Okoye, who is black and a native of Nigeria, claims that she was terminated from her position because of UTHHSC's complicity in Harris County's discrimination against her.

Okoye asserts that she experienced problems with jail employees prior to her termination. Okoye claims that Deputy Higginbotham, a white jail employee, required her to clean her own clinic and remove the clinic's trash,³ and questioned her diagnosis of an inmate complaining of a lump in her breast.⁴ Although Okoye reported Higginbotham's actions to Seale, she did not assert that Higginbotham was discriminating against her.⁵

Okoye's problems with the jail staff culminated when Michelle Bovis ("Bovis"), a white employee of the jail, made a remark indicating that Okoye did not act professionally toward her patients. While it is not entirely clear what occurred when Okoye approached Bovis to discuss the remark, Okoye admits that she reached out her hands toward Bovis to calm Bovis down. Bovis, however, complained to Harris County that Okoye assaulted her, and, therefore, Seale suspended Okoye with pay for a week while UTHHSC investigated the incident. Although Okoye denied assaulting Bovis, at the time she did not claim that the incident with Bovis, or any events precipitating the incident, were the result of discrimination.

Additionally, around the time of her suspension, Okoye removed copies of a medical file from the jail, specifically the file of the inmate Okoye treated for the lump. Okoye claims that she took the file to substantiate her claims that she did not misdiagnose the patient. Thereafter, Seale sent Okoye a memorandum informing her that removing the file was sanctionable conduct, but did not terminate her employment.

On that same day, Major Quinn from the Sheriff's Department invoked 6(c) of the contract to bar Okoye from the jail. The following day, after unsuccessfully searching for another position for Okoye, UTHHSC informed Okoye that her employment at the jail was terminated due to "performance issues." Subsequently, UTHHSC assigned a black, Jamaican-American woman to fill the nurse practitioner position.

II

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Ward v. Bechtel Corp., 102 F.3d 199, 201 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we "may affirm [the district court's decision] on any grounds supported by the record." McGruder v. Will, 204 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), an action may properly be disposed of by summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."

Okoye claims that UTHHSC discriminated against her by accepting the Sheriff's invocation of 6(c), and terminating her employment at the jail. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UTHHSC because it found that the nondiscriminatory reason proffered by UTHHSC for its actions was not a pretext for discrimination. We agree that Okoye failed to meet her burden of raising a genuine issue of material fact that the invocation of 6(c) was a pretext for discrimination.

A

Title VII prohibits an employer from "discharg[ing] an individual, or otherwise discriminat[ing] against any individual . . . because of such individual's race, . . . or national origin." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). Okoye alleges that UTHHSC is liable under Title VII for the actions taken by Harris County employees against her because UTHHSC knew or should have known that Harris County was discriminating against her and did not remedy the situation. Because Title VII addresses employer liability, it is necessary at the outset to determine which entity or entities Okoye is claiming employed her. This preliminary determination will also clarify which allegedly discriminatory acts are relevant to our Title VII inquiry.

Okoye singularly asserts that UTHHSC was her employer; in her reply brief, she refutes UTHHSC's suggestion that she is arguing that Harris County was her employer. In addition, Okoye denies that she is positing a joint employer liability theory.⁶ Because UTHHSC is the only entity alleged to have been Okoye's employer, we are solely concerned with whether UTHHSC's conduct is discriminatory.

Although Okoye argues that only UTHHSC is her employer, Okoye urges that Harris County's actions remain relevant because UTHHSC knew or should have known that Harris County was discriminating against her. Okoye relies on two cases, Williams v. Grimes Aerospace Co., 988 F.Supp. 925 (D.S.C. 1997), and Caldwell v. ServiceMaster Corp., 966 F.Supp 33 (D.D.C. 1997), to support this argument. In Grimes, a Title VII racial discrimination claim was brought against Grimes, who hired the plaintiff, Margaret Williams ("Williams"), from a temporary employment agency. Williams, a black woman, claimed that Grimes did not hire her for a full time position on account of her race. The district court in Grimes determined that Williams was jointly employed by Grimes and the employment agency, but refused to hold the employment agency liable for Grimes's conduct because the court found no proof that the employment agency knew of Grimes's conduct and failed to take remedial action. See 988 F.Supp. at 938.

Caldwell also involved a Title VII claim in the joint employer context. The Caldwell plaintiffs were employed by ServiceMaster as part of a contractual agreement between ServiceMaster and a second company, Norrell. Although the plaintiffs attempted to hold Norrell liable for the alleged discrimination of ServiceMaster, the court found that Norrell was not liable because Norrell was not alerted to the actions taken by ServiceMaster, and it "took those corrective measures that were within its control." 966 F.Supp. at 48.

Okoye's reliance on Grimes and Caldwell is misplaced. Okoye does not argue that UTHHSC and Harris County are joint employers, nor does she argue that an agency relationship existed between the two entities. Rather, Okoye contends that UTHHSC, as her sole employer, is liable for Harris County's behavior. However, even were we to assume, arguendo, that UTHHSC could be held liable for discriminatory behavior committed by Harris County, Okoye does not meet her burden here.

B

In order to survive summary judgment Okoye must raise a "genuine issue as to a[] material fact" that UTHHSC discriminated against her. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To do so, Okoye must satisfy the burden shifting test annunciated by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and applied most recently in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2109, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Reeves, "McDonnell Douglas and subsequent decisions have 'established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof,'" whereby a "plaintiff must [first] establish a prima facie case of discrimination. [After doing so,] [t]he burden [of production] shift[s] to [the defendant] to 'produce evidence that the plaintiff was rejected . . . for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.'" Id. at 2106. If the defendant is able to produce a legitimate reason, then the presumption of discrimination vanishes. However, because the burden of persuasion "'remains at all times with the plaintiff,'" the plaintiff is "afforded the opportunity [to demonstrate that an issue of material fact exists and] that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Id.

i

Okoye establishes a prima facie case by providing evidence "that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for her position; (3) was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) was replaced by someone outside the protected class," or, in the case of disparate treatment, shows "that others similarly situated were treated more favorably."⁷ Shackelford v. Deloitte &...