Lexplug logoLexplug

Linda Jean Quigg, Ed.D. v. Thomas County School District

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
814 F.3d 1227 (2016)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, which requires a plaintiff to prove pretext, is not the appropriate standard for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence at the summary judgment stage. Instead, a plaintiff need only present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action.


Facts:

  • Linda Quigg served as the Superintendent for the Thomas County School District, but had a tumultuous relationship with several members of the governing School Board.
  • Prior to Quigg's contract renewal vote, School Board members Scott Morgan and Mark Nesmith told her she needed a 'hatchet man' and 'a guy' for a proposed assistant superintendent position.
  • Board member Nesmith also told a parent of a student that 'it is time to put a man in there,' referring to a leadership position in the superintendent's office.
  • Quigg rejected Morgan's and Nesmith's proposal for an assistant superintendent at the beginning of the renewal vote meeting.
  • The School Board then voted five-to-two against renewing Quigg's contract.
  • After the vote, Board member Nancy Hiers stated she voted against Quigg because Quigg 'needed a strong male to work under her to handle problems, someone who could get tough.'
  • Months after the non-renewal, Quigg filed a sex discrimination complaint with the EEOC.
  • The following year, the School District filed an ethics complaint against Quigg with the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC).

Procedural Posture:

  • Linda Quigg sued the Thomas County School District and five individual School Board members in the U.S. District Court for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and § 1983.
  • The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
  • The district court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework and granted summary judgment to the defendants.
  • Quigg, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework apply to mixed-motive employment discrimination claims that are supported by circumstantial evidence at the summary judgment stage?


Opinions:

Majority - Wilson, Circuit Judge

No, the McDonnell Douglas framework is inappropriate for evaluating mixed-motive claims because it is a single-motive framework designed to identify the one 'true reason' for an adverse action by requiring proof of pretext. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the mixed-motive theory, which allows for liability even when legitimate reasons coexist with an illegitimate, discriminatory reason. The court adopts the standard from White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., which asks only whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that 1) an adverse employment action occurred and 2) a protected characteristic was a motivating factor. Here, discriminatory statements by board members Nesmith, Morgan, and Hiers near the time of the vote were sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to find that sex was a motivating factor in the board's decision not to renew Quigg's contract, thus her claims against the School District and those two members survive summary judgment.



Analysis:

This case establishes a significant precedent in the Eleventh Circuit by formally rejecting the McDonnell Douglas framework for mixed-motive discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence. By adopting the more lenient standard from White, the court makes it easier for plaintiffs in such cases to survive summary judgment. Plaintiffs no longer need to disprove every legitimate reason an employer offers; they must only create a triable issue of fact that an impermissible reason was one of the motivating factors. This decision aligns the Eleventh Circuit with the majority of other federal circuits and lowers the evidentiary bar for employees to get their mixed-motive discrimination claims before a jury.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Linda Jean Quigg, Ed.D. v. Thomas County School District (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"