In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Council for Advancement of Social Services and Education, 2024 WL 4479882 (W.D.La. Oct. 10, 2024), the court, inter alia, held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a claim of race-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
As stated above, the prima facie case for a Title VII discrimination claim requires a plaintiff to establish four elements. There are sufficient facts within the Complaint demonstrating the plausibility of EEOC’s claim. First, Johnson is a member of a protected group because she is Black. See Record Document 1 at 3. Many courts, including the Fifth Circuit, have held that a Black person is a member of a protected group. See Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 513 (5th Cir. 2001). Second, Johnson worked at CASSE from July 2019 to June 2020. See Record Document 1 at 3. CASSE asserts no evidence showing that she was not qualified for the position of dental assistant.
Third, Johnson was placed on unpaid administrative leave and then fired thereafter. See id. at 5. The Fifth Circuit has recently held that “to plead an adverse employment action, a plaintiff need only allege facts plausibly showing discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, or in the ‘terms, conditions, or privileges’ of his or her employment.” Hamilton v. Dall. Cnty., 79 F. 4th 494, 502 (5th Cir. 2023). Under this broader interpretation of the third element, being fired shortly after placed on unpaid administrative leave constitutes an adverse employment action.
Fourth, after Johnson’s termination, CASSE hired a White dental assistant to fill her position. See Record Document 1 at 5. To satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie case, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to “show that [she] was replaced by someone outside of [her] protected class or was treated less favorably than a similarly situated comparator of another race.” Harris v. Drax Biomass Inc., 813 Fed. Appx. 945, 948 (5th Cir. 2020). Here, Johnson was replaced by someone outside of her protected class. In Harris, the Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiff did not meet the fourth element because he was replaced by someone in his protected class. Id. The instant case is distinguishable.
Based on this, the court held that defendant’s “assertion that EEOC has failed to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII is unsuccessful” and that “[t]his claim has facial plausibility because EEOC has pleaded ‘factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that [CASSE] is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”