In Liedtke v. City of Austin, No. 25-50717, 2026 WL 2225275 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, inter alia, reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s sex-based discrimination claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
If Liedtke presents direct evidence of intentional sex discrimination, she can survive summary judgment unless the City proves it would have made the same employment decision anyway. To show that workplace comments reflect direct evidence of discrimination, Liedtke must prove that the remarks were (1) related to her protected characteristic; (2) proximate to an adverse employment decision; (3) made by someone with authority over the challenged decision; and (4) related to the challenged decision. Here, the evidence is disputed, and summary judgment does not permit us to weigh its credibility or force.
For starters, some of the offensive comments are contested. Colaianni denies stating to Liedtke that “pretty women [like her] get easy accolades.” He also denies ever hearing another officer say that female APD officers are “either a bitch or a slut.” If a factfinder determines those disputed remarks are true, they could indicate sex discrimination.
Several additional questions remain. Were the offensive comments that Liedtke’s colleagues made “stray remarks” or intentional discrimination? Were the comments proximate to an adverse employment decision? Was Liedtke constructively discharged from her role? Was the ESP issued to Liedtke an “adverse employment action?” Did Liedtke’s colleagues influence McBee—the ultimate decisionmaker—to prepare the ESP? If Liedtke has succeeded in showing intentional sex discrimination through offensive comments, does the City defeat the accusation by showing that “it would have made the same [employment] decision absent the evidence of discrimination?” Each question is wrapped in fact disputes that preclude summary judgment.
Whether the comments Liedtke describes amount to intentional discrimination is for a jury to decide. Viewed in the light most favorable to Liedtke, the remarks here appear at least as probative as those in Price Waterhouse.84 We know that Pruitt vulgarly insulted Liedtke’s appearance, Wilkes suggested that he and her fight, and Coker questioned Liedtke’s birth-control practices. Stephenson and other officers apparently insulted Sergeant McBee’s weight and lamented Lieutenant Daniel’s pregnancies and motherly responsibilities. But the City, through Colaianni’s testimony, denies that any of Liedtke’s colleagues referred to female officers as being either a bitch or a slut. Colaianni also disputes that he attributed Liedtke’s Honor Cadet award to her prettiness. The disputed and undisputed remarks certainly bear on Liedtke’s protected characteristic—her sex. Only a jury can ascertain the veracity of the disputed allegations, and a reasonable jury could find that the undisputed remarks are discriminatory.
Notably, the parties do not meaningfully dispute the proximity of the offensive comments to the challenged employment actions. But Liedtke’s pleadings provide some clues. She quickly reported the parking-lot comments that Pruitt and Wilkes made. She also informally complained about her colleagues’ conduct to Stephenson, but he responded minimally. Six days after Liedtke reported her shiftmates’ behavior to McBee, Colaianni responded with allegations of his own against Liedtke. Just one day later, Liedtke received an ESP, and resigned a few weeks afterwards. Whether that timeline establishes proximity between the alleged discrimination and the ESP or constructive discharge is itself a fact-bound question. The parties provide little guidance, and proximity of discrimination is a context-dependent inquiry.
(Citations omitted.)
The court reached the same conclusion as to plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim, noting that “[t]he temporal proximity between Liedtke’s complaints of harassment and her resignation at least supports an inference that her resignation followed the same chain of events.”