06-11-2026
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed its precedent that employees alleging discrimination must point to a similarly situated comparator outside the protected class. (Bravo v. Dallas Independent School District) Joe Bravo, the plaintiff, had argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services had relaxed that requirement. The Fifth Circuit’s decision reflects a divide among the circuit courts.
The Dallas school district fired Bravo, a Mexican-American teacher, after receiving student complaints that he made racially insensitive comments in his classroom. Bravo sued for discrimination based on his ancestry under Title VII. A district court dismissed Bravo’s case because he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The Fifth Circuit reiterated the standard burden of proof that plaintiffs must meet. They must allege they were a member of a protected class, qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and were treated less favorably than “other similarly situated employees who were not members of the protected class under nearly identical circumstances.”
Bravo argued the Supreme Court’s decision in Ames overruled Fifth Circuit precedent on the last component related to similarly situated employees outside the class. The circuit court rejected Bravo’s argument. Relying on its “rule of orderliness,” the appellate court said it must follow prior circuit precedent unless the Supreme Court’s decision “unequivocally” overruled it. Ames did not meet that standard because it did not clearly remove comparator evidence requirements, and the circuit’s existing framework for analysis was sufficiently “flexible” to work with Ames. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit stated that Ames addressed a different issue, the heightened burden for majority-group plaintiffs to make a prima facie case.
The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that plaintiffs can survive summary judgment without comparator evidence.
Takeaways: For employers in the Fifth Circuit, a plaintiff’s burden of proof is clear. For employers in other circuits, it is yet undetermined whether the comparator element is changed by Ames.