SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(US)(ca5) 159

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Watkins – Appellant
Versus
Tregre – Respondent



United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED May 7, 2021 No. 20-30176 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Denise Watkins, on her own behalf as well as all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Michael Tregre, Sheriff and Chief Law Enforcement Officer,

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-2874

Before Jolly, Stewart, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. E. Grady Jolly, Circuit Judge: After she was fired, Denise Watkins sued her former boss, St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff Mike Tregre, for race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for retaliatory discharge under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Sheriff Tregre maintains that he had a legitimate reason for firing Watkins—poor performance. But Watkins says that reason is pretextual. The district court agreed with Sheriff Tregre and entered summary judgment against Watkins. We conclude that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sheriff Tregre’s proffered reason for firing Watkins is pretext for Title VII race discrimination and Case: 20-30176 Document: 00515852967 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2021

No. 20-30176

FMLA retaliation. We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. I. Denise Watkins is a black woman who is suffering from severe anxiety. She was a shift supervisor in the dispatch department of the St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff’s Office, where she had worked for 17 years—on and off. She reported to Lieutenant Marshall Carmouche, who reported to Senior 911 Commander Conrad Baker, and to Sheriff Tregre. The events that led to this lawsuit occurred in a tight time span, between late January and early March 2018. Timing is important, so we will include specific dates. On January 30, Lieutenant Carmouche commended Watkins and three other dispatchers for “superb work.” He recognized Watkins’s performance in an email to Sheriff Tregre, explaining that “teamwork” in the 911 department had led to an arrest. Just ten days later, however, Lieutenant Carmouche counseled Watkins about her poor performance. He told Watkins during this February 9 discussion that she “need[ed] to do a better job in supervising her personnel and do a better job overall.” By way of examples, he addressed Watkins’s sleeping on the job, missing license-plate-recognition hits, making personal phone calls while on duty, and failing to ensure that emergency units promptly were dispatched. No disciplinary measures were taken. On February 20, Watkins gave Lieutenant Carmouche and Senior 911 Commander Baker a doctor’s note. The note said that “[d]ue to diagnosis of anxiety, [Watkins] requires 3 24 hour shifts/periods ‘off’ and free of responsibility per week.” Senior 911 Commander Baker passed the note up his chain of command and alerted human resources.

2 Case: 20-30176 Document: 0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top