Clarifying Interlocutory Appeals in Qualified Immunity Denials for § 1981 Discrimination Claims: Lacaze v. Gourley

Introduction

In Lacaze v. Gourley, 10th Cir. No. 24-6075 (Apr. 28, 2025), the Tenth Circuit addressed an interlocutory appeal from a district court’s denial of qualified immunity to a police chief sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for alleged racial discrimination. The plaintiff, Reubin Lacaze Jr.—an African-American officer in the Oklahoma City Police Department—was terminated by Chief Wade Gourley for allegedly falsifying a report. After winning reinstatement in arbitration, Lacaze sued under Title VII and § 1981; all claims but the § 1981 race‐discrimination claim against Gourley were dismissed. Gourley appealed the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, raising arguments about comparator evidence, merits of the pretext analysis under McDonnell Douglas, and whether § 1981 rights were “clearly established.”

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed. It held that:

Under the collateral order doctrine, a public official may immediately appeal the denial of qualified immunity to the extent it presents abstract questions of law (e.g., whether the right was clearly established), but not pure factual disputes reserved for a jury.
The district court correctly applied the two-step qualified immunity framework: (1) did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) was that right clearly established at the time?
Lacaze had raised a genuine fact dispute—through “similarly situated” comparator evidence—that Chief Gourley’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons (falsification of a report, misleading supervisors) might be pretextual.
It was “clearly established” that § 1981 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of race, and Gourley cited no binding precedent that narrowed that settled proposition.
The court lacked jurisdiction to reweigh the district court’s fact findings about comparators or pretext—the denial of summary judgment’s factual aspects are not immediately appealable.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – Established the three-step burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims.
Simpson v. Little, 16 F.4th 1353 (10th Cir. 2021) – Clarified appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine for qualified immunity appeals and distinguished reviewable legal questions from non-reviewable factual determinations.
Ibrahim v. All. for Sustainable Energy, LLC, 994 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2021) – Defined “similarly situated” employees share a decision-maker, must follow the same standards, and engage in comparable misconduct.
Kendrick v. Penske Transportation Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) – Emphasized that trivial differences in treatment or honest belief in misconduct defeat pretext.
McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 1998) – Held absence of genuine dispute on pretext when the employer sincerely believed the misconduct allegations.
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) – Limited “blatant contradiction” exception to cases with objective evidence like video recordings.
Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of African-American Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327 (2020) – Applied “but-for” causation to § 1981 claims.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three stages:

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Orders denying summary judgment are generally not appealable, but the collateral order doctrine permits interlocutory appeal of legal rulings on qualified immunity (e.g., whether a right was clearly established).
Qualified Immunity Standard:
- Step 1: Did Gourley’s termination of Lacaze violate Lacaze’s right under § 1981 to be free from racial discrimination in contract enforcement?
- Step 2: Was it “clearly established” in April 2019 that § 1981 prohibited racial discrimination in public‐employer terminations?
Pretext and Comparator Evidence: At the summary-judgment stage, Lacaze produced evidence that two white officers (Brewer and Carter) who engaged in analogous misconduct received lesser or no discipline. Under McDonnell Douglas and Ibrahim, a reasonable jury could infer this evidences pretext. The district court’s factual determination in Lacaze’s favor was not reviewable on interlocutory appeal.

Impact

Lacaze v. Gourley provides crucial guidance on:

The scope of appellate review when qualified immunity is denied—courts will entertain only abstract legal issues, not fact-bound disputes about credibility or comparative discipline.
How § 1981 discrimination claims proceed under McDonnell Douglas, reaffirming that comparator evidence suffices to raise pretext questions in § 1981 suits against public employers.
The boundaries of “clearly established law” in § 1981 context: general prohibitions against race discrimination can put public officials on notice absent distinguishable precedent narrowing the rule.
The limits of the “blatant contradiction” exception—objective, documentary evidence is required to override the non-reviewability of district court fact findings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: A defense for public officials shielding them from suit unless they violated a “clearly established” right.
Collateral Order Doctrine: Permits appeal of certain interlocutory decisions that conclusively decide important questions separate from the merits, including legal rulings on qualified immunity.
McDonnell Douglas Framework: A three-step process for proving discrimination by circumstantial evidence: prima facie case → employer’s nondiscriminatory reason → plaintiff shows pretext.
“Similarly Situated” Comparators: Employees compared must share a decision-maker, follow the same rules, and engage in comparable misconduct.
“Clearly Established” Law: A right is clearly established when every reasonable official would understand that the conduct violates the law in light of existing precedent.

Conclusion

Lacaze v. Gourley stands as a landmark clarification of qualified‐immunity appeals in § 1981 cases. It affirms that:

Denials of qualified immunity on summary judgment trigger interlocutory appeal only on abstract legal questions—factual determinations remain for the jury.
Comparator evidence in § 1981 employment actions can raise genuine issues of pretext, defeating summary judgment.
Race-discrimination protections under § 1981 are clearly established, placing public officials on notice that disparate discipline based on race is unlawful.

In the broader legal context, this decision guides practitioners on framing qualified immunity appeals and underscores the enduring potency of § 1981 in combating workplace discrimination.