Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jennifer Payne worked for the Hammond Police Department for more than two decades, most recently holding the permanent rank of sergeant and serving as a probationary lieutenant. After receiving a cervical injection in September 2022, she entered sick-leave status and took a previously scheduled trip to Mexico before obtaining required return-to-work authorization. An internal investigation concluded that the trip violated the department’s sick-leave policy. Payne later underwent lumbar-fusion surgery and remained on fully paid extended sick leave through December 2023. Her physicians did not clear her for required fit-for-duty testing, and her neurosurgeon described her restrictions as likely permanent.
Payne filed an EEOC charge in May 2023. Later that month, the department demoted her from sergeant to patrol officer for the sick-leave violation, following a state civil-service agency’s recommendation of demotion or discharge made before the department received notice of the charge. After Payne acknowledged at a November 2023 hearing that she could not perform the essential duties of a police officer, the City removed her from service. She sued under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, alleging sex and disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on every claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Payne’s Title VII sex-discrimination claims failed because she did not identify similarly situated male employees who received more favorable treatment under nearly identical circumstances. In particular, she did not show that male officers assigned light duty were likewise ineligible to work, that male employees received greater freedom under the sick-leave policy, or that similarly situated male officers received lesser discipline for comparable violations.
Her ADA and state-law accommodation claims also failed because indefinite leave was not a reasonable accommodation, she lacked medical authorization to return even to light duty, the City granted her documented request for additional permission to leave home, and she did not identify an available alternate position for which she was qualified. The record also showed that the City engaged in an interactive process. Although the timing of Payne’s EEOC charge and demotion established the causal element of a prima facie retaliation case, she offered no evidence that the City’s stated disciplinary reason was pretextual. The seven-month gap between the charge and discharge did not establish causation, and her wrongful-termination claims failed because she admitted she could not perform the essential duties of a police officer. The district court was entitled to resolve the case without a trial because no genuine dispute of material fact remained.
Key Takeaways
- A discrimination plaintiff relying on comparator evidence must show that employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably under nearly identical circumstances.
- The ADA does not require indefinite leave, removal of essential job duties, or reassignment to a position that is unavailable or for which the employee is unqualified.
- Close timing may establish prima facie causation for retaliation, but timing alone does not prove that an employer’s legitimate reason was pretextual.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence employees must produce at summary judgment to support comparator-based discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation claims. Requests for light duty or reassignment must account for return-to-work requirements and identify accommodations that would allow the employee to perform essential functions or move into an existing, available position.
It also underscores the distinction between the relatively modest causation showing required for a prima facie retaliation case and the stronger evidence needed to establish pretext and but-for causation after an employer offers a legitimate reason for its action.