Some cases should be clear-cut—but they are not. Marci Walkingstick Dixon v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Regional University System is a prime example of race discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Marci Walkingstick Dixon, a Native American woman and member of the Cherokee Nation, faced blatant employment discrimination and retaliation while working at Northeastern State University (“NSU”). Dixon’s case involved a shocking series of events. Her supervisor, Dr. Richard Reif, frequently made racist and sexist remarks, including asking about the origin of her last name, implying Native American leaders were incompetent, and commenting, “Let’s have a powwow” and “I don’t want you going on a warpath.” He assigned her stereotypically “female” tasks like taking meeting minutes and organizing office parties, despite her objections. Reif even remarked, “You’re in a good mood; your husband must be out of town,” further underscoring the hostile environment. Shocking and horrible, right?
When Dixon reported this behavior to NSU’s Title IX office, her working environment worsened. Her employer fabricated allegations of falsified timekeeping, scrutinized her work without basis, and ultimately wrongfully terminated her employment shortly after she participated in an internal investigation.
Dixon brought claims of race discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, which protects employees from workplace discrimination and retaliation for opposing unlawful practices or participating in investigations. This should have been an open-and-shut case, yet Dixon lost in the district court. Sometimes, judges just get it wrong. No case comes with guarantees but losing with such evidence of discriminatory conduct stings. Thankfully, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had a chance to fix it.
Best Employee’s Rights Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Judges May Have Discriminatory Bias Too
- Don’t Count On Judges To Do What You Expect
- Some Judges Will Just Get Employment Law Wrong
- Judges Disagree Whether Elephant Is Person
- According To Judges, Are Bumblebees Considered Fish?
How Can I Prove My Employer Discriminated Against Me?
The McDonnell Douglas test is one way to evaluate Title VII claims when direct evidence of discrimination is unavailable. It has three steps:
- The employee must establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which includes demonstrating that they belong to a protected class, are qualified for their job, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
- The employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
- The employee must prove the employer’s stated reason is a pretext for discrimination.
Dixon established her prima facie case by showing she was a qualified Native American woman who was terminated and replaced in a role that was not eliminated. The district court, however, faulted her for not proving the discriminatory conduct occurred “in close proximity” to her termination or that similarly situated employees were treated differently. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected this reasoning, holding that “these are not ‘indispensable element[s] of the prima facie case.’” Citing Sorbo v. United Parcel Serv., the Court clarified that “a plaintiff who satisfies the McDonnell Douglas elements raises an inference of discrimination.” Walkingstick Dixon, 2025 WL 85495 at *11.
The Tenth Circuit held that Dixon’s evidence—including positive performance evaluations and the absence of documentation supporting the alleged performance issues—raised an inference of discrimination.
Best Race Discrimination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- How Can I Prove That I Was Terminated Based on Race Discrimination?
- How Do You Prove Causation In Wrongful Termination Cases?
- What Is Direct Evidence Of Employment Discrimination?
- What Evidence Do I Need To Show Race Discrimination At Work?
What Should I Do If My Employer Retaliates Against Me for Reporting Discrimination?
Retaliation occurs when an employer punishes an employee for engaging in protected activities, such as reporting discrimination or participating in investigations. Dixon’s case shows how retaliation can escalate after an employee opposes or reports employment discrimination or files a complaint.
After Dixon reported her supervisor’s discriminatory behavior, she was subjected to increased scrutiny. NSU fabricated claims of falsified timekeeping, despite its own informal and inconsistently enforced policies on compensatory time. Less than a month after participating in an internal investigation, Dixon was terminated. The timing of her termination—coupled with the fabricated allegations—was enough for the Court to find a causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse action.
If you suspect retaliation, document every incident, including emails, meetings, and changes to your job duties. Seek legal counsel immediately to protect your rights and build your case.
Best Retaliation Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Can Timing Alone Prove Workplace Retaliation?
- How Do You Prove Causation In A Retaliation Claim?
- How Do I Prove Illegal Retaliation By My Job Under Title VII?
How Can I Prove My Employer’s Reason for Firing Me Is A Lie?
Pretext refers to a false or insincere reason given by an employer to justify adverse actions against an employee. In workplace discrimination cases, proving pretext involves showing that the employer’s stated reasons for termination or other actions are not credible and serve as a cover for unlawful motives.
In Dixon’s case, NSU engaged in several actions that pointed to pretext:
- The Employer Searched for Reasons to Fire Her: HR notes documented discussions about restructuring, reducing force, and potential misconduct, such as theft of property, well before Dixon was terminated. These notes even included speculative questions like “Can we find evidence of gross misconduct on L Drive?” and “Can we show copy or delivery to home emails?” This demonstrates that NSU was not reacting to any specific incident but actively looking for ways to justify firing her, which supports allowing a jury to consider whether their reasons were fabricated.
- Contradictory Explanations: HR’s shifting justifications for Dixon’s termination included “reduction in force” and “theft of property,” neither of which were mentioned in her termination letter. This inconsistency makes the employer’s stated reasons appear unreliable and suggests a jury should question their credibility.
- Inconsistent Policies: NSU’s comp time policy was vague and inconsistently applied. Dixon’s timekeeping practices were never questioned before her complaint. Selective enforcement of unclear policies after a discrimination report is strong evidence of pretext that a jury should evaluate.
- Retaliatory Timing: Dixon was terminated shortly after participating in the investigation, which the Court found highly suspicious. The close timing raises an inference that the firing was retaliatory and not based on legitimate business reasons, an issue for a jury to weigh.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, “Pretext can be inferred from evidence revealing weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s explanation.” Walkingstick Dixon, 2025 WL 85495 at *10.
If you believe your employer’s justification for termination is a cover-up, gather evidence to challenge their claims. This may include performance reviews, emails, and testimonies from coworkers. A skilled employment lawyer can help you expose pretext and strengthen your case.
Best Wrongful Termination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- How Do I Prove That My Employer Lied About Why I Was Fired?
- How Do I Prove Pretext For My Wrongful Termination?
- Retaliation Is Still Easier To Prove Than Discrimination
- Employer’s Lies Are Called Pretext
Why Should I Choose Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm?
Searching for “the best attorney for workplace discrimination” can be overwhelming. Here is why calling Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is your smartest move:
Spitz is one of the largest firms in the nation dedicated exclusively to employee rights, meaning we have the resources to take on even the biggest employers. Our lawyers bring vast trial experience and a proven history of achieving great results for clients. We also offer a free initial consultation and a no-fee guarantee, so there is no financial risk to you. Our empathetic approach ensures your voice will be heard, and our team will fight tirelessly to secure the justice you deserve.
Call us today for your free consultation. Do not wait to protect your rights.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This national origin, race, and gender discrimination blog provides general information and should not be taken as legal advice. If you are dealing with workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, or any violations of employment law, you should consult with a qualified employment lawyer who can provide personalized legal advice. No promises or guarantees are made regarding your specific case, and this blog is intended as a legal advertisement to raise awareness about employee rights and available legal protections.