Narayanan v. Midwestern – Fifth Circuit Tightens the “Near-Identical Comparator” and “Close Temporal Proximity” Tests under Title VII

Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in its August 5 2025 decision Narayanan v. Midwestern State University, No. 24-10849, delivered the second appellate opinion in a protracted employment dispute involving Dr. N. Sugumaran Narayanan, a tenured associate professor, and Midwestern State University (“MSU”) along with its Board of Regents. The case centers on MSU’s refusal to grant Professor Narayanan a 2018 summer teaching assignment and its subsequent termination of his employment during extended medical leave.

The core legal questions before the Fifth Circuit were whether:

• MSU’s denial of a summer class constituted unlawful race discrimination under Title VII;
• the same decision amounted to retaliation for Narayanan’s earlier discrimination lawsuit; and
• the district court erred procedurally by (i) declining to solicit new briefing on remand and (ii) denying Narayanan’s Rule 59(e) motion based on allegedly “new” evidence.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court across the board, refining two doctrinal fault lines: (i) what it means to be a “similarly situated” comparator in discrimination claims, and (ii) how much time may separate protected activity and an adverse action before a retaliation claim fails for lack of causation.

Summary of the Judgment

• Discrimination Claim: Narayanan could not meet the fourth prong of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie test because he failed to point to nearly identical comparators who both (a) taught summer courses in 2018 and (b) had similarly reduced course loads the prior academic year.
• Retaliation Claim: A roughly one-year gap between Narayanan’s 2016 lawsuit (settled in 2017) and MSU’s summer-assignment decision in 2018 was, standing alone, too remote to create a causal link. The court reaffirmed that even a five-month gap is normally insufficient in the Fifth Circuit.
• Procedural Issues:
  • The district court acted within its discretion by ruling on the fully briefed record after remand without allowing supplemental briefing.
  • The Rule 59(e) motion was rightly denied because the proffered evidence (summer classes taught by White professors and intra-departmental emails) was cumulative, discoverable earlier with diligence, and would not have changed the outcome.
• Holding: Summary judgment for MSU affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The panel anchored its reasoning on a familiar scaffold of Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit authority:

• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – Three-step burden-shifting framework for Title VII claims.
• Lee v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) – Articulates the “nearly identical comparator” requirement.
• Newbury v. City of Windcrest, 991 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2021) and Lyons v. Katy ISD, 964 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2020) – Hold that temporal gaps of five months or more generally defeat the causal link in retaliation cases.
• Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) – States that Rule 59(e) relief is “extraordinary” and should be granted sparingly.

Other authorities—Brown v. Wal-Mart, Saketkoo, McCoy, and the panel’s own earlier unpublished opinion in Narayanan (2023)—fleshed out PRA elements of discrimination and retaliation or the standard of review.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Prima Facie Failure – Comparator Analysis
   The court assumed Narayanan met the first three McDonnell Douglas elements and focused on the fourth: disparate treatment of similarly situated employees. Applying Lee, the panel required a showing that the comparators (1) held the same job, (2) had the same supervisor, and (3) engaged in nearly identical conduct. MSU disqualified Narayanan because he carried a reduced course load in 2017–18; none of Narayanan’s proposed comparators shared that characteristic. Absent “near identity,” the comparators were legally inapt.
2. Lack of Causation – Temporal Proximity
   For retaliation, the panel reaffirmed that “close” means really close in the Fifth Circuit. A year between protected activity and adverse action is, as a matter of law, insufficient to infer causation without more. Narayanan supplied no additional evidence (e.g., antagonistic statements, suspicious timing of investigations) to bridge the gap.
3. Burden on Rule 59(e) Movant
   Even if new material had been genuinely unearthed after judgment, Rule 59(e) demands (i) diligence, (ii) non-cumulative value, and (iii) outcome-determinative weight. The court held Narayanan’s evidence failed all three metrics.
4. Discretion on Remand Procedure
   Federal trial judges retain broad discretion to decide whether additional briefing is necessary after remand. The panel found no error where the district court expressly ruled that the issues were already substantively briefed.

C. Impact

• Comparator Precision Heightened. Litigants in the Fifth Circuit must marshal evidence of colleagues whose employment situations mirror theirs in every material respect, including workload anomalies or disciplinary history. “Professor in the same department” is not enough.
• Temporal Proximity Bright-Line. The decision hardens an implicit bright-line rule: gaps of ≥ five months between protected activity and adverse action rarely—perhaps never—meet the prima facie burden without additional proof.
• Limited Remand Rights. Parties cannot count on fresh briefing after remand. If issues were fully litigated before appeal, district courts may proceed directly to merits rulings.
• Strategic Timing of Evidence. Employees must develop the evidentiary record before summary-judgment disposition; courts will treat “late-breaking” documents skeptically under Rule 59(e).
• Institutional Reassurance for Universities. Academic employers defending Title VII claims gain precedential support for (a) discretionary summer-teaching assignments, (b) leave-of-absence denials, and (c) discipline during extended overseas medical leave, provided decisions are grounded in documented, race-neutral business reasons.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Title VII Discrimination – Makes it unlawful to treat an employee less favorably “because of” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
• Prima Facie Case – An initial, minimal showing that gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Think of it as opening the courthouse door.
• Comparator – Another employee against whom treatment is measured. In the Fifth Circuit, the comparator’s job duties and disciplinary record must be nearly identical to the plaintiff’s.
• Temporal Proximity – How close in time the employer’s adverse act is to the employee’s protected activity (e.g., filing a complaint). Short gaps imply retaliation; long gaps break the inference.
• Rule 59(e) Motion – A post-judgment request asking the trial court to alter or amend its ruling. Limited to correcting clear errors or considering genuinely new—previously unavailable—evidence.
• Summary Judgment – A procedural device allowing courts to dispose of cases with no genuine dispute of material fact, short-circuiting the need for a trial.

Conclusion

Narayanan v. Midwestern underscores the Fifth Circuit’s exacting standards for Title VII plaintiffs. To survive summary judgment, claimants must:

1. Produce comparator evidence that aligns on all material axes—including workload history;
2. Show materially adverse actions occurred in tight temporal proximity to protected conduct or buttress longer gaps with direct or circumstantial proof of retaliatory animus;
3. Present all relevant evidence before—not after—judgment, lest Rule 59(e) relief prove elusive.

By tightening the “near-identical comparator” and “close temporal proximity” tests, the Fifth Circuit provides clearer, if narrower, lanes for future litigants. For employers, the decision offers a blueprint: document neutral reasons contemporaneously, treat workloads consistently, and decisions will likely withstand judicial scrutiny. For employees, it signals the evidentiary heavy lifting required to press discrimination and retaliation claims within one of the nation’s most demanding circuits.