Luceus v. Rhode Island

Facts

1. 1 Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization satisfied conceded

   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

2. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied conceded

   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.

3. 4 Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status satisfied assumed

   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."

4. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded

   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."

5. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded

   She does not dispute most of the Department's allegations of disruptive conduct and, indeed, explicitly acknowledges the truth of several of them.

6. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence

   Luceus does not offer enough evidence to rebut that legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.

7. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence

   She does not dispute most of the Department's allegations of disruptive conduct and, indeed, explicitly acknowledges the truth of several of them.

8. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence

   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.

9. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence

   The primary evidence Luceus offers to counter the defendants' stated justification is the data she offers to support her disparate impact claim.

10. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence

    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.' "

11. 10 Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group not no-evidence

    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.

12. 10 Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group not no-evidence

    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.

13. 10 Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group not no-evidence

    Here, Luceus has failed to demonstrate "a significant statistical disparity" on the basis of race.

14. 10 Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group not no-evidence

    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.

15. 10 Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group not no-evidence

    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.