The Main Question in the Case
When an employee in a protected class is demoted and replaced by someone outside their protected class, does that combination support an inference of discrimination? And is that inference of discrimination sufficient enough to establish a prima facie case and defeat summary judgment?
The Allegations and Key Evidence Discussed on Appeal: Lui v. DeJoy
The case summary describes several key facts and disputes that shaped the appellate ruling:
1. Targeting through complaints after promotion: Lui alleged that after she became Postmaster, she faced false complaints and hostile treatment tied to her sex, race, and national origin.
2. Management concerns about biased discipline: Lui’s supervisor reportedly believed the allegations against her were false and raised concerns that the complaints may have been motivated by racial animus, refusing to carry out a demotion based on those accusations.
3. Demotion approved after leadership change: USPS replaced Lui’s supervisor with a manager who approved the demotion. Lui’s demotion came with reduced pay, making it an adverse employment action.
4. Replacement by a white male: After the demotion, USPS appointed a white male to the Postmaster position. The Ninth Circuit treated this fact as central to whether Lui met the “replacement outside the protected class” element of the prima facie discrimination framework.
5. Internal appeal investigation relied on a limited review: Lui challenged the demotion internally. The internal review described in the summary consisted largely of a documentary review of the demotion decision and written complaints, without live interviews or independent probing into the credibility or bias concerns raised.
