Competent Summary-Judgment Evidence of Qualification Required in §1981 Failure-to-Promote Claims

Introduction

Fry v. City of Hernando, 5th Cir. No. 24-60532 (May 13, 2025), presents a dispute between Willie Fry, a Black firefighter, and the City of Hernando, Mississippi. Fry applied three times (2018, 2020, 2021) for promotion to the position of driver, each time failing the required promotional exam. After the third attempt, Fry sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that Fry had not produced “competent summary-judgment evidence” to show he was qualified for the driver position. Fry’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration was also denied. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed both the summary judgment and the denial of reconsideration.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit, per curiam, reviewed de novo the grant of summary judgment and for abuse of discretion the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court held:

Fry failed to establish a prima facie case because he offered no admissible evidence that he had passed the City’s promotional exam, an essential “qualification” element.
Without proof of qualification, Fry could not create a genuine dispute of material fact on discriminatory motive or pretext.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fry’s motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e), since ineffective assistance of counsel is not a recognized basis for relief in a civil suit.

The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed both the summary judgment and the reconsideration denial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 1973): Established the burden-shifting framework in circumstantial discrimination suits. The plaintiff first must make a prima facie case; the employer then must articulate a legitimate reason; the plaintiff must show that reason is pretextual.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (477 U.S. 317, 1986): Clarified that summary judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party fails to produce evidence on an essential element of a claim.
Brown v. City of Houston (337 F.3d 539, 2003): Emphasized that “unsubstantiated assertions” and “unsupported speculation” cannot defeat summary judgment.
Johnson v. PRIDE Industries (7 F.4th 392, 2021): Reaffirmed the prima facie requirements in failure-to-promote cases under § 1981.
Osborne v. Belton (131 F.4th 262, 2025): Held that a notice of appeal encompassing an order denying reconsideration encompasses the underlying judgment.
Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma (702 F.3d 177, 2012): Described the narrow grounds for Rule 59(e) relief—intervening law, new evidence, or manifest error.
Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Service (785 F.2d 1236, 1986): Confirmed that ineffective assistance of counsel is not a basis for reconsideration in civil cases.
Luig v. North Bay Enterprises (817 F.3d 901, 2016): Reviewed Rule 59(e) motions for abuse of discretion.

Legal Reasoning

1. Prima Facie Qualification Element: The Court held that to maintain a § 1981 failure-to-promote claim, a plaintiff must show he was “qualified for” the position. The Hernando Fire Department’s uncontroverted requirement was passage of a multi-part promotional exam. Fry’s summary-judgment filings contained no admissible evidence—no test scores, no certified records—demonstrating he had ever passed any portion of the exam. Under Celotex, that failure is fatal.

2. Burden-Shifting Framework: Because Fry did not establish the threshold of qualification, the City need not proffer a nondiscriminatory reason, nor must Fry show pretext. The Court thus affirmed summary judgment without reaching motive or pretext.

3. Rule 59(e) Motion: Fry’s pro se motion contended his prior attorneys provided ineffective assistance. The Fifth Circuit reiterated that Rule 59(e) only permits relief for (a) intervening changes in law, (b) new evidence, or (c) manifest errors, not attorney-performance claims. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Impact

This decision underlines that:

Plaintiffs in § 1981 failure-to-promote actions must submit admissible evidence on every element of their prima facie case, especially qualification.
Bare allegations or unsworn statements cannot substitute for documentary proof at summary judgment.
Civil litigants cannot seek post-judgment relief under Rule 59(e) based on alleged attorney errors.

Future courts will rely on Fry as a clear illustration that lack of evidence on an essential element is dispositive, streamlining summary-judgment adjudication in discrimination suits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

42 U.S.C. § 1981: Federal law prohibiting racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, including employment promotions.
Summary Judgment: A court ruling that ends a case without a full trial because there is no genuine dispute over facts that matter legally.
McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting: A three-step process for circumstantial discrimination claims—(1) plaintiff’s prima facie case, (2) employer’s nondiscriminatory explanation, (3) plaintiff’s proof of pretext.
Prima Facie Case: “At first glance” evidence a plaintiff must present to survive initial scrutiny; here, that means showing he was qualified, was rejected, and similarly situated individuals of a different race were promoted.
Rule 59(e): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allowing a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment only on very narrow grounds.

Conclusion

Fry v. City of Hernando reinforces the principle that summary judgment must be granted when a plaintiff fails to produce admissible evidence on a key element of a discrimination claim. The decision clarifies that qualification under § 1981 means more than subjective belief—it requires concrete proof, such as passing required exams. It also confirms that Rule 59(e) does not serve as a vehicle for challenging attorney performance in civil cases. This precedent will guide both litigants and courts in efficiently resolving § 1981 failure-to-promote claims.