Lui v. DeJoy

Facts

Title VII disparate-treatment claims are analyzed under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792: the plaintiff must first prove a prima facie case; the burden then shifts to the employer to “‘articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason’” for the action; and, if it does, the plaintiff must show that reason was “‘a pretext for discrimination.’” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 776, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248, 252–253.) The plaintiff’s prima facie “‘requisite degree of proof … is minimal.’” (Id. at p. 776.)

Dawn Lui, “a woman of Chinese ethnicity in her late fifties,” had worked for the United States Postal Service since 1992 and became Postmaster of the Shelton, Washington Post Office in 2014. (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 774.) According to the sworn declarations of Lui and her supervisor Charles Roberts, employees “began targeting Lui with a series of false complaints and grievances,” while “white male managers … were not similarly targeted.” (Ibid.) Workers referred to her as “‘Asian bitch’” and “‘witch,’” spread the “‘complaint/rumor that Dawn can’t read or speak English,’” and, during one grievance investigation, subjected her to “‘a humiliating interview’” asking whether she had a “‘personal or intimate relationship’” with Roberts. (Ibid.)

Roberts raised concerns that Human Resources Manager Alexis Delgado and others were “targeting Lui based on her race and gender,” but Delgado instead “‘worked unusually close[ly] with’” a union representative “‘to pursue discipline against … Lui.’” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 774.) Delgado and Darrell Stoke, Roberts’s direct supervisor, told Roberts they “‘wanted … Lui removed from the USPS’” and warned that if he did not support the discipline he “‘would be moved to another position’” so a replacement could sign off. (Id. at p. 775.) Delgado and Stoke prepared a notice proposing to downgrade Lui from Shelton Postmaster to Postmaster of the smaller, lower-paying Roy Post Office, citing three charges of “Unacceptable Conduct.” (Ibid.) Roberts “refused to sign the notice because he believed the allegations … were false and based on racial animus,” and was “temporarily replaced” by Carter Clark, who signed the notice on October 28, 2019. (Ibid.)

Lui appealed to Tacoma Postmaster Karen Bacon, to whom Roberts had already conveyed “his concerns about the racial bias of Delgado and the other employees.” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 775.) On February 11, 2020, Bacon signed a “Letter of Decision” sustaining the first two charges as “‘supported by the record,’” declining to consider the third, and confirming the downgrade. (Ibid.) After her demotion, Lui “was replaced as head of the Shelton Post Office by Robert Davies, a white man with less experience.” (Ibid.) Bacon’s review “consisted of a documentary review of Delgado’s notice … and the complaints of other employees”; she “heard no live testimony,” “never met any of the employees who submitted the complaints,” “credited their written complaints even after hearing Roberts’s concerns that [they] were motivated by racial animus,” and had “‘no idea’ whether the complainants were white.” (Id. at p. 780.)

Procedural history

Lui filed EEO complaints and, after the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed her demotion, sued USPS under Title VII for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at pp. 775–776.) A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on the retaliation claim but denying it on the disparate-treatment and hostile-environment claims; the district court instead granted summary judgment against Lui on all claims. (Id. at p. 776.) The Ninth Circuit “affirm[ed] in part, reverse[d] in part, and remand[ed]”: it reversed summary judgment on disparate treatment, vacated and remanded the hostile-work-environment claim for the district court to reach the merits, and affirmed summary judgment on retaliation. (Id. at pp. 776, 782.)

Issue

Three questions. First, on the prima facie case: may a demoted Title VII plaintiff satisfy the fourth McDonnell Douglas element merely by showing her position was filled by someone outside her protected class, or must she additionally identify a “similarly situated” comparator who was treated more favorably? Second, on the employer’s burden: does a confirming official’s review of the demotion defeat an inference of discrimination as a matter of law, or may a subordinate’s bias be imputed to the employer where the review was not “actually independent”? Third, on exhaustion: did the plaintiff exhaust her hostile-work-environment claim, and was retaliation properly dismissed for lack of a causal connection? (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at pp. 776, 779, 780, 782.)

Holding

Reasoning

1. The fourth element: replacement outside the protected class suffices. The court acknowledged its “confusing” case law, in which some decisions “truncated” the fourth element to require a “similarly situated” comparator. (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 777.) Tracing the element back to McDonnell Douglas and St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) 509 U.S. 502 — where the plaintiff could satisfy it by showing the position “‘was ultimately filled by a white man’” — the court explained that the “similarly situated” formulation was developed only for cases (like reductions in force) in which the plaintiff could not point to a replacement. (Id. at pp. 777–779.) It therefore adopted the sister-circuit “catch-all” standard requiring only that the adverse action “‘occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of [] discrimination,’” which “captures the essence of the various formulations.” (Id. at p. 778.) Applied here, replacement by “a white man” sufficed; no comparator was required. (Id. at p. 779.)

2. The employer’s stated reason and subordinate bias. The district court had accepted that Bacon’s review carried USPS’s burden and broke any link to the alleged bias of Lui’s coworkers. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, invoking its subordinate-bias (or “cat’s paw”) doctrine: “‘a subordinate’s bias is imputed to the employer if the plaintiff can prove that the allegedly independent adverse employment decision was not actually independent because the biased subordinate influenced or was involved in the decision or decisionmaking process.’” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 779, quoting Poland v. Chertoff (9th Cir. 2007) 494 F.3d 1174, 1182.) On this record, a factfinder could find Bacon’s decision “not ‘actually independent’”: her review “consisted of a documentary review” of the biased subordinates’ own submissions, she “heard no live testimony,” “never met” the complainants, “credited their written complaints even after hearing Roberts’s concerns” about racial animus, and did not know whether the complainants were white. (Id. at p. 780.) Because she “based her decision on reports and documents containing information provided by the very individuals that Lui has alleged to be racially biased,” a genuine dispute existed on whether the decision was actually independent or tainted by subordinate bias. (Ibid.)

3. Hostile work environment: forfeiture, exhaustion, and the notice as part of the environment. The court held that Lui’s failure to brief exhaustion in her opening brief “is at most forfeiture, not waiver,” and, because USPS had ample notice and was not prejudiced, exercised its discretion to reach the issue. (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at pp. 780–781.) On the merits, Lui timely notified the EEO within 45 days of the October 28, 2019 notice, and that notice — though a discrete act for disparate-treatment purposes — could also be “part … of the actions” cumulatively constituting a hostile environment. (Id. at pp. 781–782.) The court again noted the cat’s-paw dynamic: after Roberts refused to sign, Delgado and Stoke “brought in an outsider — Clark — … [who] had no independent knowledge of the underlying facts and was merely acting as a cat’s paw for Delgado and Stoke.” (Id. at p. 781.) It remanded for the district court to address the merits. (Id. at p. 782.)

4. Retaliation: no causal connection. The court affirmed summary judgment for USPS on retaliation. Lui’s theory rested on the third “Unacceptable Conduct” charge — bringing an employee’s husband into a staff-only area while investigating his sexual-harassment complaint — but Bacon “explicitly stated that she did not consider the third charge,” resting the demotion on the first two, which Lui did not claim involved protected activity. (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 782.) Lui’s contention that Bacon’s disavowal of the third charge was a “subterfuge” “point[ed] to no evidence,” so she “failed to ‘produce evidence to show that [Bacon’s] stated reasons were a pretext for retaliation.’” (Ibid.)

Significance

Lui makes two contributions that recur in everyday discrimination litigation. First, it clarifies and simplifies the fourth element of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case in the Ninth Circuit, disapproving the notion that a demoted or discharged plaintiff must always identify a “similarly situated” comparator. Replacement by someone outside the protected class is itself enough; the unifying test is simply whether the adverse action arose “under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 778.) Because the prima facie burden is “minimal,” this keeps the doctrine from becoming a merits trap at the threshold. (Id. at p. 776.)

Second, and more pointedly, the decision limits how far an employer’s later review insulates a biased recommendation. The court did not hold that a genuinely independent investigation cannot break the causal chain; it held that a paper-only review that credits the reports of the very people alleged to be biased — without hearing from them, meeting them, or investigating the animus charge — creates a triable issue on whether the decision was “actually independent.” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 780.) That reasoning is the Ninth Circuit’s application of the “cat’s paw” theory the Supreme Court adopted for federal antidiscrimination law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital (2011) 562 U.S. 411, and it maps directly onto FEHA, where California recognizes the same subordinate-bias principle. For California practitioners, Lui is a persuasive, on-point authority both for pleading the prima facie case and for defeating the “independent decisionmaker” defense at summary judgment.

Key quotes

“[A] Title VII plaintiff who cannot show that her ‘position remained open …’ or that her position ‘was ultimately filled by a white man’ can alternatively establish a prima facie case … by showing that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated individuals. Showing such differential treatment is not an additional requirement under the fourth element of McDonnell Douglas. It is, instead, an alternative means of satisfying the fourth element.” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 779.)

“[A] subordinate’s bias is imputed to the employer if the plaintiff can prove that the allegedly independent adverse employment decision was not actually independent because the biased subordinate influenced or was involved in the decision or decisionmaking process.” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 779, quoting Poland v. Chertoff (9th Cir. 2007) 494 F.3d 1174, 1182.)

“At the very least, there is a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Bacon’s decision was actually independent or influenced by subordinate bias.” (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 780.)

Read the full opinion (CourtListener) →

Practice pointer

Open questions

The decision leaves the merits of two claims for remand. Having reversed summary judgment on disparate treatment, the court did not decide whether Lui will ultimately prove pretext or whether Bacon’s decision was in fact tainted — only that a jury must resolve the dispute. (Lui, supra, 129 F.4th at p. 780.) On the hostile-work-environment claim, the court expressly declined to reach the merits, remanding “for the district court to address” them in the first instance. (Id. at p. 782.) The retaliation ruling also left an antecedent question unresolved: the parties disputed whether Lui’s investigation of a coworker’s sexual-harassment complaint was itself “protected activity,” but the court “d[id] not reach that issue” because causation failed regardless. (Id. at p. 782.) Finally, while the court adopted the “inference of discrimination” catch-all for the fourth element, it did not catalog every fact pattern that will or will not give rise to that inference, leaving the contours to develop case by case. (Id. at p. 778.)