“Significant Record Evidence” Beyond Temporal Proximity: Fifth Circuit Clarifies Pre-Text Standard in Title VII Retaliation – A Commentary on Sotonwa v. Collins

1. Introduction

In Sotonwa v. Collins, No. 24-11043 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) against Dr. Kayode Sotonwa’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The decision, designated “not for publication,” nevertheless articulates a crystal-clear rule that plaintiffs alleging retaliation must present “significant record evidence” in addition to temporal proximity to create a fact dispute on pretext at the summary-judgment stage.

The case arises from a turbulent period at the West Texas VA Health Care System (“WTVA”) during which Dr. Sotonwa—a Black, Nigerian-born physician over forty—was investigated and ultimately demoted from Associate Chief of Staff (“ACOS”) to Staff Physician. He alleged the investigation and demotion were based on race, national origin, and prior Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity; the VA contended they were grounded solely in findings of abrasive leadership and inappropriate examinations uncovered by an Administrative Investigation Board (“AIB”).

2. Summary of the Judgment

Discrimination Claim: Assuming arguendo that Dr. Sotonwa made a prima facie case, the court held the VA articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (AIB findings plus leadership concerns). Dr. Sotonwa offered only subjective beliefs and speculative testimony; no reasonable jury could infer pretext.
Retaliation Claim: Even if temporal proximity existed between protected activity and adverse action, the plaintiff produced no “significant record evidence” beyond timing. Without such evidence, pretext could not be inferred.
Hostile-Work-Environment & ADEA Claims: Not pursued on appeal; district court’s dismissal stands.
Holding: District court’s grant of summary judgment affirmed in full.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): Provided the three-stage, burden-shifting framework for circumstantial-evidence discrimination and retaliation claims. The panel rigorously applied each step.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) & Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a): Set the summary-judgment standard (“no genuine dispute as to any material fact”). The court emphasized that unsubstantiated assertions do not suffice.
Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2001); McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007): Cited for prima facie elements of discrimination.
Jones v. Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, 8 F.4th 363 (5th Cir. 2021): Quoted for the proposition that merely disputing an employer’s assessment does not infer pretext.
Saketkoo v. Tulane Educ. Fund, 31 F.4th 990 (5th Cir. 2022) & Shahrashoob v. Texas A&M Univ., 125 F.4th 641 (5th Cir. 2025): Groundwork for the “temporal proximity plus significant evidence” formula in retaliation cases; Sotonwa drives the point home.
Univ. of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013): Confirmed the “but-for” causation standard for Title VII retaliation; implicitly guides the Fifth Circuit’s causation analysis.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Assumed Prima Facie Showing: To streamline analysis, the court presumed the plaintiff satisfied the initial McDonnell Douglas prong for both discrimination and retaliation.
Employer’s Legitimate Reasons:
- AIB’s independent findings: “Inappropriate” exams; alarming peer descriptions (“bully,” “dictatorial”).
- Hastings’s memorandum after in-person observations.
- JangDhari’s independent review, including an hour-long meeting with counsel.
Collectively, these were “clear and reasonably specific” reasons unrelated to protected classes or activity.
Failure to Show Pretext:
- Discrimination: Plaintiff relied on his own view that the investigation was “merit-less” and on two co-workers’ impressions—insufficient under Jones.
- Retaliation: Temporal proximity alone (EEO complaint → demotion) cannot create fact issue; Fifth Circuit reiterated that “significant record evidence” is also required (Shahrashoob lineage). Plaintiff offered none.
Rejection of Subjective or Speculative Assertions: Echoing a long line of precedent (Carnaby, Clark), the panel stressed that speculation is not competent summary-judgment evidence.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Although unpublished, the opinion is citable under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Its practical consequences include:

Higher Evidentiary Bar for Retaliation: Plaintiffs must marshal objective evidence—emails, comparator treatment, inconsistent explanations, statistical data, witness testimony—beyond timing. Mere suspicion or hurt feelings will not defeat summary judgment.
Validation of Thorough Internal Investigations: The court credited the AIB’s independent composition and methodical process. Employers that document such investigations can successfully defend adverse actions.
Guidance on “Gruff Leadership” as Legitimate Basis: Leadership style, if supported by concrete examples and corroborated complaints, may justify discipline without inviting liability.
Strategic Litigation Lessons:
- Plaintiffs should preserve and present all specific rebuttal evidence in opposition to summary judgment.
- Employers should memorialize decision-making chains to negate knowledge of protected activity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Administrative Investigation Board (AIB): An internal VA panel, often composed of external officials, tasked with fact-finding on alleged misconduct. Its reports are not dispositive but can be powerful evidence.
Summary Judgment: A pre-trial procedure where the judge decides there is no need for a jury because no genuine factual disputes exist. Evidence is viewed in the non-movant’s favor, but speculation is ignored.
Prima Facie Case: The initial, minimal showing required to shift the burden of production to the employer. It is not enough to win the case.
Pretext: A false reason given by the employer to hide true discriminatory or retaliatory motives. Proved by inconsistencies, comparators, shifting explanations, or direct admissions.
Temporal Proximity: The closeness in time between protected activity (e.g., filing an EEO complaint) and an adverse action (e.g., demotion). Alone, it may suggest causation but is rarely sufficient without corroborating proof.

5. Conclusion

Sotonwa v. Collins reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s firm stance that timing plus conjecture cannot substitute for substantive evidence when challenging an employer’s stated motivations. Plaintiffs must adduce “significant record evidence” to survive summary judgment at the pretext stage—an evidentiary hurdle now unmistakably clarified.

For practitioners, the opinion underscores twin imperatives: (1) Employers should conduct meticulous, well-documented investigations; (2) Plaintiffs must compile tangible proof—documents, comparator data, inconsistencies—early in litigation. Absent such evidence, courts in the Fifth Circuit will not hesitate to dispose of Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims at summary judgment.