Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—S.D. Tex.: Male employee’s sex discrimination suit survives summary judgment, (Oct 30, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

A supervisor’s remark about a “woman-led organization” and her expressed desire to demote a man and promote a woman plainly related to the protected characteristic of sex.

A sex discrimination suit brought by a male employee of a Texas appraisal district, who was allegedly fired for tardiness and insubordination, survived summary judgment before a federal court in that state since other facts suggested the firing was based on sex and retaliation. In addition to presenting direct evidence of sex discrimination, the employee alleged he experienced retaliation for reporting comments by his supervisor that she preferred women leaders and desired to promote women. A reasonable jury could conclude that the higher-level manager, after meeting with the employee’s supervisor about the alleged comments, decided to fire the employee based on that supervisor’s recommendation and not because of tardiness or insubordination (Perras v. Galveston Central Appraisal District, No. 3:24-cv-00043 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2025)).

Alleged conduct. In August 2022, seven weeks before his termination, the employee testified that his supervisor told him she wanted a “woman-led organization” and discussed her desire to “demote [him] and promote [a] female employee to a similar level position.” He also testified that he met with the Chief Appraiser and reported the remarks as discriminatory. The Texas appraisal district disputed that the supervisor made the remarks and that they were reported. The employee also argued that he requested to attend a conference, and his supervisor told him that she would check with the Chief Appraiser. A female employee was sent instead and the Chief Appraiser allegedly said that he never knew about the male employee’s desire to attend.

On October 3, 2022, the employee reported late to work. On October 4, 2022, his supervisor instructed him to check in at the office before going to work in the field. He did not comply and was written up for insubordination. On October 5, 2022, his supervisor suspended him and recommended his termination. On October 10, 2022, he was fired by the Chief Appraiser. After he was fired, two female employees took on his work.

Sex discrimination. In analyzing the employee’s sex discrimination claim, the court turned to the Fifth Circuit’s four-prong test for direct evidence. Under that test, a remark constitutes direct evidence of discrimination if it is (1) related to the plaintiff’s protected characteristic; (2) proximate in time to the challenged employment decision; (3) made by an individual with authority over the challenged employment decision; and (4) related to the challenged employment decision. The first two prongs were easily met. The court found the remark on a “women-led organization” related to a protected class and that the firing was made seven weeks after the alleged remark.

“Cat’s paw” theory. On the third prong, even though the supervisor did not have the authority to fire, the employee relied on the “cat’s paw” theory of liability, by which he argued that the supervisor, who had the discriminatory animus, had influence over the decision maker. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the Chief Appraiser, who met with the employee’s supervisor for an hour prior to the firing, later decided to fire him based on the supervisor’s recommendation.

As for the fourth prong, the court determined that the supervisor’s statement about demoting the employee and promoting a woman in his place was sufficiently related to the employment decision at issue to suggest that the supervisor was motivated by improper bias. Since the Texas appraisal district promoted the employee twice in the same year that he had 21 tardies, one write-up, and two suspensions for tardiness and insubordination, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that he would not have been fired but for his supervisor’s recommendation to the Chief Appraiser.

Retaliation. The employee also claimed that he was retaliated against in violation of Title VII. The court noted that he must present a prima facie case of retaliation by establishing: (1) engagement in protected activity; (2) that the employer took a materially adverse action against him, and (3) that a causal link exists between his protected activity and the adverse action.

The Texas appraisal district argued that even if a prima facie case were established, the employee was fired for different reasons: tardiness and insubordination. Since the burden shifted back to the employee, the court noted that he must show that his supervisor was motivated by a retaliatory animus. That meant that he must point to evidence that his supervisor knew about the employee’s complaint.

Describing it as a “close call” the court found that some evidence suggested that the Chief Appraiser informed the supervisor of the employee’s complaints. The employee testified that the Chief Appraiser told him that he would speak to his supervisor about the gender discrimination complaints. That, coupled with the Chief Appraiser’s own testimony that he would speak with the person accused of discrimination, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the supervisor knew about the employee’s complaints.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00043.

Attorneys: Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes (Shellist Lazarz Slobin) for Nicholas Perras. Ricardo J. Navarro (Denton Navarro Rodriguez Bernal Santee & Zech) for Galveston Central Appraisal District.

Companies: Galveston Central Appraisal District

Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge TexasNews