Opinion ID: 167585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Grado's Racial Bias

Text: 37 The district court held, and we agree, that the EEOC has raised a genuine issue of fact concerning Mr. Grado's racial animus. In general, isolated racial comments are insufficient to establish pretext unless they can somehow be tied to the employment actions disputed in the case at hand. Stewart v. Adolph Coors Co., 217 F.3d 1285, 1289 (10th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, at the summary judgment stage all rational inferences from the evidence must be made in favor of the party opposing the summary judgment motion. Ortiz v. Norton, 254 F.3d 889, 896 (10th Cir. 2001). In Ortiz, we held that evidence of discrimination in employment decisions affecting other workers could support an inference that the decision makers harbored a bias against Hispanics which might have affected other decisions, including the decisions adverse to plaintiff. Id. A plaintiff also may show pretext `by providing evidence that he was treated differently from other similarly situated, nonprotected employees who violated work rules of comparable seriousness,' provided the similarly situated employee shares the same supervisor, is subject to the same performance standards, and otherwise faces comparable relevant employment circumstances. Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1232). 38 In this case, the EEOC has produced sufficient evidence to create a jury question concerning Mr. Grado's racial animus. Mr. Wilson claims that Mr. Grado directed many race-based remarks, and offered three examples of racial jokes and put-downs. App. 184-85. In his affidavit, Mr. Katt says that Mr. Grado may have used a racial epithet to describe Mr. Peters in the immediate aftermath of the termination and lawsuit. 2 Id. at 212. These comments may have been infrequent, but they certainly were not isolated: they were directed at other black merchandisers under Mr. Grado's supervision, suggesting a pattern of racial bias in disciplinary matters that could have affected Mr. Grado's conduct with respect to Mr. Peters' termination, and in one case concerned Mr. Peters himself. 39 In addition, three other merchandisers — two black and one Hispanic — submitted affidavits giving specific examples of Mr. Grado's disparate treatment of black and Hispanic merchandisers. Mr. Young claims that Mr. Grado nit-pick[ed] my work and constantly threatened to change my days off and to change my route, but did not . . . treat non-African American employees in this manner. App. 181. He recalls being threatened with a schedule change for leaving the back room of one of his stores a bit messy, while Mr. Grado tolerated a non-black merchandiser's very messy back room many times. Id. Mr. Esquibel named six Hispanic employees who were not fired after disobeying company directives. Id. at 183. Mr. Wilson says that Mr. Grado was unusually picky with black merchandisers, often calling us back to stores that had been serviced to redo some minor detail, while the Hispanic Merchandisers were not subject to this same level of scrutiny. Id. at 185. Broadly, he claims that Mr. Grado treated Hispanic Merchandisers with respect but continually demeaned me and threatened to replace me. Id. 40 Most importantly, the EEOC produced evidence of Mr. Grado's unfazed response to the incident involving a Hispanic merchandiser, Ms. Lovato. Like Mr. Peters, Ms. Lovato reported to Mr. Grado and was directed to work one of her days off. Like Mr. Peters, she failed to come to work, in direct violation of her instructions and in spite of considerable efforts by Mr. Katt to come to accommodate her schedule. Unlike Mr. Peters, who was fired two days later, Ms. Lovato received no discipline whatsoever as a result of the incident, with Mr. Grado reportedly saying, You can't make somebody work one of their days off. Id. at 211. To be sure, there are factual differences between these incidents: Ms. Lovato received all of her orders through Mr. Katt whereas Mr. Peters spoke to Mr. Grado directly, and Ms. Lovato initially acquiesced in the orders (before disobeying them) whereas, according to Mr. Grado, Mr. Peters initially behaved in a defiant manner and announced an intention to disobey the orders (before being excused from work). They are similar enough, however, that in light of the dramatic difference between Mr. Grado's actions in each case, as well as the other evidence of discriminatory conduct, a reasonable jury could find the situations comparable and infer that racial animus played a role in Mr. Peters' treatment. 41 We do not necessarily believe that each of the incidents recounted above would support a charge of discrimination in isolation, but taken as a whole, this evidence of racial comments and disparate treatment of black merchandisers creates a genuine issue of fact regarding Mr. Grado's racial bias.