Source: cases/42usc2000e-2/f3d-923-255-luceus-v-rhode-island.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_923/0255_01/index.html
Assuming without deciding that Luceus has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment, it is nonetheless clear that she " 'has not mustered enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that [the defendants'] stated reason' " for failing to promote her "was pretextual."
Except in unusual cases of overwhelming evidence, intuition is not to be trusted, and in order to reach the required prima facie threshold a plaintiff ordinarily must demonstrate that there is "a significant statistical disparity" between the employment outcomes for white and non-white employees.
Here, Luceus has failed to demonstrate "a significant statistical disparity" on the basis of race.
Luceus does not offer enough evidence to rebut that legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.
casedsl 1.2
# author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f3d/923/0255-01
name Luceus v. Rhode Island
cite 923 F.3d 255 (2019)
court United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
date 2019-05-08
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_923/0255_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl sha1=ca1925c1f83d722a59bee035878eb351ba4a58dd chars=11173
opinion maj : majority by Souter @0..11173 controlling
law 42usc2000e-2 (a), (k)
role applied
posture civil; Title VII race discrimination (non-promotion) and disparate impact; summary judgment for state employer affirmed by CA1
result claimant-lost
element employer : satisfied [conceded]
route public-employer
pattern state-department-of-labor
fact @27..220 [supports] | Erika Luceus, an employee of the call center of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, sued the Department and the State of Rhode Island for discrimination in violation of Title VII
element protected-class : satisfied [conceded]
route race
pattern black-state-employee
fact @279..456 [supports] | Luceus claimed that the Department's promotion practices have a disparate impact on minority employees, and that the Department has declined to promote her because she is black.
element adverse-action : satisfied [assumed]
route failure-to-hire-or-promote
pattern call-center-employee-not-promoted
held @7055..7339 | Assuming without deciding that Luceus has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment, it is nonetheless clear that she " 'has not mustered enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that [the defendants'] stated reason' " for failing to promote her "was pretextual."
? basis: the non-promotion itself is not disputed (the Department gave a reason for it), but the court bypasses the whole prima facie case, so [assumed] rather than [conceded]
element impact : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
route statistical-disparity
pattern raw-counts-of-temporary-assignments-without-eligible-pool-or-significance-analysis
rule @2168..2465 | Except in unusual cases of overwhelming evidence, intuition is not to be trusted, and in order to reach the required prima facie threshold a plaintiff ordinarily must demonstrate that there is "a significant statistical disparity" between the employment outcomes for white and non-white employees.
fact @1695..1925 [supports] | The record shows that between 2009 and September 2014 (when she first complained to the Department's human resources office), only one minority employee received a three-day-rule assignment, as compared with seven white employees.
fact @3566..3809 [cuts-against absent] | Indeed, she has not even presented reliable data on which a statistical conclusion would rest, because she has not established the racial composition of the pools of employees eligible for three-day-rule assignments in the instances she cites.
fact @4459..4699 [cuts-against] | Using the data she provided, they presented expert analysis demonstrating that there was "no statistically significant evidence of a disparate impact" stemming from the three-day-rule assignments that were the subject of Luceus's complaint.
held @3229..3327 | Here, Luceus has failed to demonstrate "a significant statistical disparity" on the basis of race.
element employer-reason : satisfied [conceded]
route misconduct
pattern disruptive-conduct-and-coworker-altercation
fact @7402..7808 [supports] | The Department's stated justification for declining to promote Luceus was her disruptive conduct in the workplace: it presented evidence that she was involved in an altercation with a coworker in which the two had to be physically separated, and that she had "a history of returning late from work breaks, refusing to collaborate with her coworkers, and posting signs in her cubicle to provoke management."
fact @7938..8084 [supports] | She does not dispute most of the Department's allegations of disruptive conduct and, indeed, explicitly acknowledges the truth of several of them.
? basis: the employer's burden is one of production; the court treats the justification as "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" and largely admitted. No basis value says "produced"; [proved] (Flash) was wrong because no trier of fact found anything
element pretext : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
route falsity-of-reason
pattern admitted-misconduct-no-comparator-only-general-statistics
rule @9024..9314 [quoted] | For that reason, " 'statistical evidence of a company's general hiring patterns, although relevant, carries less probative weight' " in a disparate treatment claim, "and 'in and of itself[ ] rarely suffices to rebut an employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for its decision.' "
fact @7938..8084 [cuts-against] | She does not dispute most of the Department's allegations of disruptive conduct and, indeed, explicitly acknowledges the truth of several of them.
fact @8148..8374 [cuts-against absent] | She also fails to identify other, white employees "similarly situated" to her "in all relevant respects" who were "treated differently by the employer," as might permit a jury to find that the employer's reason was pretextual.
fact @8651..8795 [supports] | The primary evidence Luceus offers to counter the defendants' stated justification is the data she offers to support her disparate impact claim.
held @7841..7937 | Luceus does not offer enough evidence to rebut that legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.
misfit The causal (because-of) prong of the prima facie case is bypassed ("Assuming without deciding"), so no because-of block is recorded.