Williams v. Fairfax County: The Fourth Circuit Clarifies that “Minor Discrepancies” Cannot Establish Pretext under Title VII

Introduction

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ unpublished opinion in Edward Williams v. Fairfax County Government (No. 24-1636, July 16 2025) addresses the evidentiary burden an employee must shoulder at the pretext stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework when alleging discrimination or retaliation under Title VII. Edward M. Williams, a Child Protective Services supervisor and an openly gay man, claimed that Fairfax County terminated him in retaliation for reporting a homophobic remark and because of his sexual orientation. After the district court granted summary judgment to the County, Williams appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Williams failed to create a genuine dispute that the County’s articulated performance-based reasons were a pretext for unlawful animus.

Although unpublished and therefore non-precedential, the decision crystallises a recurring theme in Fourth Circuit jurisprudence: trivial inaccuracies or “minor discrepancies” in an employer’s rationale cannot, standing alone, demonstrate pretext. The opinion also illustrates how appellate courts may bypass the prima-facie inquiry and proceed directly to the latter stages of McDonnell Douglas.

Summary of the Judgment

Prima facie stage assumed. The panel assumed, without deciding, that Williams established prima facie cases of discrimination and retaliation.
Legitimate reasons shown. Fairfax County satisfied its burden of production by pointing to (i) two internal investigations revealing widespread performance deficiencies, and (ii) Williams’ mishandling of a high-risk “drug-addiction case.”
No pretext demonstrated. Williams failed to prove the proffered reasons were false or that unlawful motive was a but-for (retaliation) or motivating (discrimination) factor. His arguments—past satisfactory evaluations and alleged factual errors in the termination letter—amounted to “minor discrepancies” insufficient to cast doubt on the County’s explanation.
Affirmance. The district court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): foundational burden-shifting structure. The panel applied steps two and three.
Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2019): reiterated de novo review of summary judgment and articulated employer’s burden of production.
Strothers v. City of Laurel, 895 F.3d 317 (4th Cir. 2018): discussed opposition-based retaliation standards.
Foster v. Univ. of Md.–E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015): explained that a plaintiff must show falsity plus retaliatory/ discriminatory motive.
Sempowich v. Tactile Sys. Tech., Inc., 19 F.4th 643 (4th Cir. 2021): listed ways to show pretext—shifting explanations, factual mistakes, or falsity.
Hux v. City of Newport News, 451 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2006): coined the “minor discrepancies” phrase; relied upon to reject Williams’ challenge.
Dugan v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716 (4th Cir. 2002) & DeJarnette v. Corning Inc., 133 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 1998): stress that courts do not sit as “super-personnel departments.”
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000): ultimate burden of persuasion remains with plaintiff.
Perdue v. Roy Stone Transfer Corp., 690 F.2d 1091 (4th Cir. 1982): importance of EEOC Right-to-Sue letter (jurisdictional backdrop).

The court wove these authorities to reaffirm two bedrock propositions: (i) employers need only produce—not prove—legitimate reasons; and (ii) plaintiffs bear the heavier burden of showing both falsity and discriminatory/retaliatory intent, which cannot rest on immaterial errors.

B. Legal Reasoning

Skipping to Steps Two and Three. Assuming the prima facie case avoids needless analysis where the dispositive issue is pretext (efficient judicial economy).
Legitimate, Non-discriminatory Reasons Established.
- Williams’ performance deficiencies were substantiated by (a) a supervisor review of open cases and (b) a Quality Assurance audit of closed cases.
- The drug-addiction case served as a paradigmatic example of inadequate risk assessment.
Pretext Evaluation.
- Williams’ past “satisfactory” mid-year review did not negate later-discovered deficiencies.
- Requests for more coaching amount to disagreement with disciplinary severity, not evidence of discriminatory motive.
- Alleged mistakes in the termination letter (e.g., who initiated coaching) did not undermine the core performance rationale.
- No showing that the County’s justifications evolved over time or were factually impossible.
Role Limitation of the Judiciary. Using DeJarnette, the panel reiterated that courts do not grade personnel decisions—only their legality.

C. Impact on Future Litigation

1. Heightened Evidentiary Emphasis at Pretext Stage. Plaintiffs within the Fourth Circuit must marshal concrete, material evidence—mere technical errors in paperwork will rarely suffice.
2. Guidance for Employers. Maintaining contemporaneous, well-documented investigations and performance audits can be decisive.
3. Strategic Litigation Considerations. Counsel must focus early discovery on uncovering shifting explanations or demonstrable falsities rather than peripheral inaccuracies.
4. Local Government Precedent. Public employers in Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and the Carolinas may rely on this reasoning when defending performance-based terminations after complaints of discrimination or retaliation.
5. Unpublished yet Persuasive. Although non-binding, district courts often cite unpublished Fourth Circuit opinions for persuasive value, especially where the logic aligns with published circuit law such as Hux.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A procedural device allowing courts to dispose of cases without trial when no factual dispute requiring a jury exists.
Prima Facie Case: The initial, minimal showing a plaintiff must make to create a presumption of illegal conduct.
McDonnell Douglas Framework: A three-step burden-shifting method used when direct evidence of discrimination is absent:
1. Plaintiff’s prima facie case.
2. Employer’s legitimate reason.
3. Plaintiff’s proof of pretext.
Pretext: A lie covering up the true, unlawful reason. To establish it, a plaintiff must show the articulated reason is false and the real motive is discriminatory or retaliatory.
“Minor Discrepancies” Doctrine: In the Fourth Circuit, trivial mistakes or inconsistencies that do not undermine the core rationale cannot, by themselves, defeat summary judgment.
Right-to-Sue Letter: A notice from the EEOC allowing a complainant to bring suit in federal court after the agency declines or concludes its investigation.

Conclusion

Williams v. Fairfax County Government reinforces a central tenet of employment discrimination law: an employee may not avoid summary judgment by quibbling over peripheral inaccuracies in the employer’s explanation. To survive, the plaintiff must expose genuine, material falsities that reasonably suggest unlawful bias was a motivating or but-for cause of the adverse action. For litigants in the Fourth Circuit, this decision, though unpublished, serves as a potent reminder that diligent performance documentation, thorough internal reviews, and consistent reasoning remain powerful shields against Title VII claims, while plaintiffs must focus on substantive, not trivial, contradictions when attempting to demonstrate pretext.