Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—5th Cir.: White employee unable to revive Title VII racial discrimination claim based on failure to promote, (Aug 18, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The appeals court declined to substitute its judgment for the employer in evaluating what types of experience are most valuable for an employee in a new position in the absence of proof that the standards were not consistently applied.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer on a white employee’s Title VII failure to promote claim because the employee presented no evidence of racial discrimination. While the district court determined that the employee had sufficiently stated a prima facie case that the employer’s failure to promote him was racially motivated based on the circumstantial evidence, he produced no evidence indicating that the employer promoted two minority candidates because he was white. The appeals court noted that the employer satisfied its obligation to proffer legitimate reasons for its decision not to promote the employee by providing specific reasons for hiring the minority candidates related to the job duties of the specific positions, and by explaining with record evidence why the employee was not hired (Stelly v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections Louisiana State, Office of State Police, No. 24-30550 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2025)).

The employer, the Louisiana State Police, uses a multi-step process to hire for its approximately 30 captain positions. Interested lieutenants must take an eligibility examination. Candidates scoring “in the top seven grade groups... move to the next phase of promotion”—an interview with a panel. The superintendent is the final decisionmaker and may make the final determination based on interview answers, recommendations, and other career factors.

Promotion bias. The employee in this dispute began working for the state police in 1995 as a trooper and became a lieutenant in 2004. Between 2008 and 2021, he applied to captain positions 31 times but was not selected. Of the first 30 vacant captaincies for which he applied, 22 positions went to white applicants while eight went to non-white applicants.

The employee brought this suit based on the promotions of two non-white lieutenants to vacant captain positions. Both of the minority candidates had worked in their respective divisions prior to being promoted to captain; the employee had not. According to the employee, he was more qualified for the promotions because he had higher scores on the eligibility test and more time in grade as a lieutenant and trooper than the successful candidates. In lieu of promotion, the employee was offered other opportunities “so that he could gain experience in various sections, and let the command staff and the senior command staff view and experience his work,” and interview advice on how to present his candidacy more favorably.

Instead, he retired and filed this action alleging Title VII and § 1981 violations, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss as to the § 1981 claim, constructive discharge, and retaliation. At the conclusion of discovery, the district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s Title VII failure to promote claim. The district court held that the employee had failed to rebut the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for its failure to promote him. The employee appealed.

Evidence of discrimination. The district court rejected the employee’s argument that he had presented direct evidence of discrimination, but determined that he had sufficiently stated a prima facie case that the employer’s failure to promote him on July 9, 2021, was racially motivated based on the circumstantial evidence of “his assertions that he was not promoted to either of the captain positions for which he was qualified, and that individuals outside of his protected racial class were promoted instead.” The burden then shifted to the employer to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for declining to promote the employee. The employer asserted it had promoted the minority candidates because they were better qualified for the specific captain positions in their respective divisions.

The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on the basis that the employee had produced no evidence indicating that the employer promoted minority candidates, not because it valued their significant prior experience in their divisions over the employee’s credentials, but because he was white.

On appeal, the employee focused on steps two and three of the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework and argued that the district court failed to consider his relative qualifications, statistical analysis, mixed-motive theory of discrimination, and other evidence of pretext.

Relative qualifications. As to an Asian candidate, the employee asserted he was more qualified because he scored higher in the promotional exam, had more time in grade, had a Master’s degree and completed some work toward a Ph.D., had more specialized training, had more awards and commendations, and had a better disciplinary history. The employer responded that the Asian candidate was selected because he had worked for seven years and 10 months in the division—experience that the employee, who spent most of his career in a patrol section, simply did not have.

The record reflects that the employer stated that the promotional exam score was used to determine who moved to the second phase of the process—distinct from the ultimate hiring determination. The employee offered no evidence to suggest that the employer typically considers test performance in the second round of captain hiring and did not do so for him.

Similarly, the employer offered testimony that it is not a “time and grade” organization, and so the Asian candidate’s number of years as a lieutenant was not the basis of its hiring decisions. Further, the employee offered no evidence that number of commendations and awards was the dispositive factor, or even a major factor, in hiring. Moreover, the Asian candidate was still found to be more suitable for the captain position despite a disciplinary action.

The Fifth Circuit declined to substitute its judgment for the employer in evaluating what types of experience are most valuable for an employee in a new position in the absence of proof that the standards were not consistently applied.

African-American candidate. The same held true with respect to the employee’s objections regarding the hiring of an African-American candidate. The employee did argue that the African-American candidate was not the most qualified because other candidates for the captaincy had more experience in the division than he did. However, he did not introduce evidence related to the race of those candidates. Moreover, the employee’s own evidence shows that in many instances, white candidates for captain were promoted over other candidates with more time in that particular department.

Thus, the employer satisfied its obligation to proffer legitimate reasons for its decision not to promote the employee by providing specific reasons for hiring the minority candidates related to the job duties of the specific positions, and by explaining with record evidence why the employee was not hired.

Statistical analysis. Before the district court, the employee proffered himself as a statistical expert and sought to enter his report on the use of race in the promotions to captain by the employer. The district court did not discuss the statistical evidence in its summary judgment opinion. On appeal, the employee urged the appeals court to consider his report, arguing that the district court erred in rejecting his analysis.

But the statistics here only “establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment.” An employer can rebut such a prima facie case “by introducing proof that plaintiffs’ statistics are ‘inaccurate or insignificant’ or by providing a ‘non-discriminatory explanation for the apparently discriminatory result.’” Here, the employee’s evidence did not rebut the employer’s legitimate explanation for its hiring decisions. Accordingly, the district court did not err in not considering this evidence when determining whether the employee showed pretext.

Mixed-motive theory. A Title VII plaintiff can establish unlawful employment discrimination under a mixed-motive theory. The employee argued that the district court applied the wrong standard for summary judgment by not mentioning mixed motives. But the mixed motive standard is typically important insofar as it determines the jury instructions. The district court did not have to mention “mixed motive” because it ruled out any application of the standard when it indicated that the employee had produced no evidence indicating that the employer promoted the minority candidates... because the employee was white.

A mixed motive analysis requires some showing that the protected characteristic was at least partially a motivating factor. Here, the district court’s determination that there was no evidence at all showing race was a factor impliedly finds that this is not a mixed motive case.

Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the employee’s Title VII claim because the employee presented no evidence of racial discrimination to survive summary judgment.

The case is No. 24-30550.

Judge: Higginson, S.

Attorneys: Victor Roma Farrugia (Farrugia Law Firm) for John R. Stelly, II. Stephen L. Miles (Pipes Miles Beckman) for Department of Public Safety and Corrections Louisiana State, Office of State Police.

Companies: Department of Public Safety and Corrections Louisiana State, Office of State Police

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge PublicEmployees LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews