Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jennifer Ramsey worked for San Jacinto College District for more than 16 years, received four promotions, and historically earned positive performance reviews. Beginning in 2018, she experienced a severe medical condition affecting her vision, hearing, balance, and cognitive functions. She took FMLA leave for two surgeries, later received intermittent leave, and sought workplace accommodations for migraines and hearing problems.
After Ramsey returned from leave, the college issued a series of notices citing tardiness, missed deadlines, errors, communication problems, and allegedly unprofessional interactions. Her supervisor, Kam Marvel, recommended termination shortly after Ramsey discussed her brain injury, possible administrative claims, and a renewed request for a specialized headset. The chancellor approved the recommendation, and Ramsey was terminated in December 2021. The district court granted summary judgment to the college on her ADA and FMLA claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment on Ramsey’s ADA discrimination and retaliation claims and her FMLA retaliatory-discharge claim. Viewing the evidence in Ramsey’s favor, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the college’s performance-based explanation pretextual. Relevant evidence included a favorable performance rating amid the disciplinary process, the omission of disability-related context from a corrective notice, suspicious timing, and evidence contradicting Marvel’s statements about his knowledge of Ramsey’s disability and accommodation requests.
The court also held that a jury could attribute Marvel’s alleged discriminatory or retaliatory animus to the college under a cat’s-paw theory. Although the chancellor was the final decisionmaker and apparently lacked relevant knowledge when she initially approved termination, Marvel prepared the disciplinary documents and recommendation that principally informed her decision. The court affirmed summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim because Ramsey inadequately briefed her theory that termination during an approved period of intermittent leave itself constituted interference.
Key Takeaways
- An ADA termination plaintiff need not separately prove replacement by a nondisabled person or more favorable treatment of nondisabled employees; those facts are only one possible way to establish a connection between disability and termination.
- Suspicious timing, inconsistent performance evidence, omitted disability-related context, and contradictions concerning a supervisor’s knowledge can collectively create a jury question on pretext.
- A supervisor’s allegedly biased recommendation may support employer liability under the cat’s-paw theory even when the ultimate decisionmaker lacks discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that courts may not weigh competing explanations or resolve credibility disputes at summary judgment. Evidence casting doubt on a supervisor’s account can permit ADA and FMLA retaliation claims to reach a jury even when the employer has documented substantial performance problems.
The ruling also highlights the importance of adequately briefing each claim. Ramsey’s FMLA interference theory failed not on a definitive ruling about whether termination can constitute interference, but because she did not sufficiently develop or support that argument.