By Anthony R
In Waters v. City of Dallas, the Fifth Ciruit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling dismissing a Dallas Police Lieutenant’s racial discrimination claim.
Marlon Waters, an African-American male, was employed as a lieutenant by the Dallas Police Department (DPD). Waters’ discrimination claim resulted from circumstances surrounding the 2010 NBA All-Star Game. Over the course of the NBA All-Star event, a snow storm hit Dallas. Waters, one of the designated watch commanders for the event, reacted by allowing his subordinates to report to work early. However, because of budgetary constraints, DPD commanders (Watson included) were ordered to minimize overtime expenditures.
Because Waters called the officers in on overtime, he was verbally reprimanded and forced to leave work early—causing him to lose 7 hours of overtime. Waters was then transferred twice in the following 7 months. When Waters inquired about the reasons for his transfers, he was told he was “transferred as a last resort because he kept ‘getting into these little things,’ and that if he did not shape up he was out the door.”
Waters then began to suffer from severe stress and anxiety. Instead of reporting for duty, Waters requested leave, and ultimately resigned.
Waters thereafter brought suit against the City of Dallas, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court discussed the burden of proof:
[The court] analyze[d] Waters’s Title VII claims under the familiar burden-shifting framework . . . Under this framework, a plaintiff first must set out a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation; if the plaintiff sets out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to state a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action; if the defendant provides such a reason, the plaintiff must prove that it is pretextual.
To support his prima facie case, Waters produced evidence that the City authorized 50 hours of overtime for a white lieutenant on the same day it reprimanded Waters for invoking overtime. But the Court distinguished those situations:
Waters does not dispute that the Caucasian lieutenant received permission prior to authorizing the overtime. The fact that Waters ignored a superior’s instruction, while the second lieutenant did not, is fatal to Waters’s prima facie discrimination claim.
