Smith v. Houston Independent School District

Filing 25

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SCWYANA SMITH,
Plaintiff,
VS.
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-3083

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. 23. Upon review
and consideration of the motion, the response thereto, and the relevant legal authority, the Court
concludes that Smith’s motion should be denied.
I.

Legal Standard
Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (“A motion to alter or amend

judgment must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly
discovered evidence.”).
II.

Discussion
Smith argues the Court’s conclusion that Smith failed to meet her burden, under the third

and fourth prong of the modified McDonnell Douglas test for discrimination cases involving a
general reduction in force (RIF), of demonstrating “she was qualified to assume another
position” and “after [the] discharge others who were not members of the protected class
remained in similar positions” to Smith’s before her termination, was a manifest error. Eugene v.
Rumsfeld, 168 F. Supp. 2d 655, 668 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (citing Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d
962, 966 (5th Cir. 1999). In regard to the third prong of the modified McDonnell Douglas test,
1/3

Smith maintains she had been “cross-trained in 2004 to handle other positions but was denied
that opportunity when she was demoted and then terminated.” Doc. 23 at 2. Nevertheless, Smith
testified she had no knowledge of any open, available positions that were not offered to her by
the Defendant. Doc. 16-3 at 61. In regard to the fourth prong of the modified McDonnell
Douglas test, Smith, an African-American Christian woman, claims other individuals who were
not members of the protected class remained in similar positions to the one from which she was
terminated. Prior to the RIF, all four employees who held the General Clerk III position were
African American and at least two of them were Christian. After the RIF, both of the remaining
General Clerk IIIs were African American, and at least one was Christian. See Procurement
Servs. Dep’t Org. Chart, Doc. 16, Ex. 22; Aff. of Ethyl Kujimiyo, Doc. 16, Ex. 38. Therefore,
Smith failed to show the Court’s conclusion as to the third and fourth prong of the modified
McDonnell Douglas test were a manifest error of law.
Smith also claims that “she alleged throughout her deposition that [the Reduction in
Force] was merely a pretext for the Defendant’s discrimination against her.” Smith previously
admitted the Defendant was forced to implement a district-wide RIF due to state-wide budget
cuts. Doc. 1 at 7. All General Clerk IIIs in the Procurement department were subject to the RIF,
irrespective of their race or religion. Doc. 16-1 at 31. Smith was discharged based on receiving
one of the lowest scores on the post-RIF interview, which was prepared according to HISD
Board Policy. Smith does not submit any evidence or cite any authority to support her allegation
of pretext in her motion to reconsider.

2/3

III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 27th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3