Pretext Standard in Failure-to-Promote Claims Affirmed: York v. Ezell

Introduction

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Delton York v. Charles Ezell, No. 24-50770 (5th Cir. June 4, 2025), clarifies the requirements for an employee to survive summary judgment in a discrimination suit alleging wrongful refusal to promote under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The plaintiff, Delton York—an African-American federal employee in his forties—alleged that OPM Director Charles Ezell, in his official capacity, declined to recommend him for a career-ladder promotion from GS-12 to GS-13 because of his race and age. After the district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, York appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that York failed to show that the employer’s performance-based rationale was a pretext for discrimination.

Background and Key Issues

Delton York worked as a career-ladder Human Resources Specialist in the Office of Personnel Management’s Organization Design & Position Classification unit. Under 5 C.F.R. § 335.104 and the OPM Human Resources Handbook, employees rated “Fully Successful” may be advanced at management’s discretion if they demonstrate competence at the next grade. York had three consecutive “Fully Successful” ratings under his first-line supervisor, Michelle Arcara. After Arcara’s departure, several acting supervisors filled the role on an informal, rotating basis until Laura Knowles was competitively selected. Second-line supervisor Jason Parman was the ultimate decision-maker on York’s eligibility for promotion at the end of fiscal year 2014. Based on feedback from Knowles and others, Parman decided not to recommend York for GS-13, citing deficiencies in complex consulting tasks, administrative accuracy, autonomy, communication, and timeliness.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding:

York failed to carry his burden of showing a similarly situated comparator (his white colleague, Jason Hohman) because the record established disparate performance evaluations and promotion contexts.
Even assuming a prima facie case of race and age discrimination, York offered no evidence that Parman’s nondiscriminatory explanation—York’s unsatisfactory job performance—was a pretext for discrimination.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed, emphasizing that on summary judgment York bore the burden to demonstrate pretext, and that the opinions of non-decision-makers (acting supervisors) were inconsequential where Parman alone made the promotion decision.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): Established the burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims.
Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2004): Applied McDonnell Douglas to Title VII wrongful promotion claims.
Ross v. University of Texas at San Antonio, 139 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 1998): Extended McDonnell Douglas to ADEA claims.
Little v. Republic Refining Co., 924 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1991): Held poor job performance is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for adverse action.
Lavigne v. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 654 F. App’x 640 (5th Cir. 2016): Non-decision-maker statements do not establish discriminatory intent.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework:

Prima Facie Case: York alleged he (a protected class member) applied and was qualified for promotion, was denied, and a non-minority employee (Hohman) was promoted. The Fifth Circuit did not reach whether York’s prima facie showing was sufficient.
Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason: Parman articulated that York’s work product—consulting reports, billing statements, travel vouchers, and other administrative tasks—fell below expectations, and that York required substantial oversight and follow-up.
Pretext: On summary judgment, York had to produce evidence that Parman’s stated reasons were a cover for discriminatory animus. He pointed to favorable opinions from two acting supervisors and an alleged remark by Parman about preferring hires from a “majority-white alma mater.” The court held:

Those acting supervisors lacked final decision-making authority; their views could not undermine Parman’s performance-based rationale.
York’s subjective interpretation of the alleged remark was conclusory and insufficient to infer racial or age animus.
York’s unsupported allegation of “witness tampering” was neither raised below nor substantiated.

Consequently, York failed to carry his ultimate burden of proving that the employer’s reason for denying promotion was pretextual.

3. Impact

This decision underscores several points for future failure-to-promote discrimination litigation:

Performance-based rationales, when well-documented, will survive summary judgment absent strong evidence of discriminatory motive.
Only the statements and evaluations of the actual decision-maker carry weight in establishing pretext; testimony from non-decision-makers is immaterial.
The plaintiff bears the evidentiary burden not only of forming a prima facie case but of affirmatively showing pretext to proceed to trial.
Conclusive, speculative, or post-hoc interpretations of remarks do not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact on discriminatory intent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A pretrial ruling where the court decides there is no genuine dispute over the key facts and one side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting: In discrimination cases with only circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff first establishes a prima facie case; the employer then provides a legitimate reason for its action; the plaintiff must finally show that reason is a pretext for discrimination.
Career-Ladder Promotion: A process allowing employees to advance to the next grade without a new competition if they meet performance and qualification criteria set by regulation and agency policy.
Comparator Analysis: The plaintiff must show that someone outside the protected class, in similar circumstances, was treated more favorably.

Conclusion

York v. Ezell reaffirms the Fifth Circuit’s stringent approach to pretext in failure-to-promote claims. Employers who document performance evaluations thoroughly and adhere to established promotion criteria can obtain summary judgment unless an employee presents concrete evidence that discrimination motivated the decision. The ruling cautions litigants against relying on opinions of non-decision-makers or speculative interpretations of remarks to prove pretext. In the broader legal landscape, this case emphasizes the critical role of the final decision-maker’s documented reasons and the high bar plaintiffs must clear to take discrimination claims past summary judgment.