Opinion ID: 67472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spears’s Racial Discrimination Claim

Text: Section 1981 entitles all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States with the same rights to enter in and enforce contracts as those “enjoyed by white citizens.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The elements of an employment discrimination claim asserted under § 1981 are identical to a discrimination claim asserted under Title VII. Flanagan v. Aaron E. Henry Cmty. Health Sevs. Ctr., 876 F.2d 1231, 1233 (5th Cir. 1989). Thus, employment discrimination claims brought under § 1981 are analyzed under the same evidentiary framework as Title VII claims. Roberson v. Alltel Information Servs., 373 F.3d 647, 651 (5th Cir. 2004). Under Title VII it is “an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Spears has not provided direct evidence of discrimination, therefore, his claim based on circumstantial evidence is analyzed under the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). See Turner, 476 F.3d at 345. Spears must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that he “(1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) was replaced by someone outside the protected class, or in the case of disparate treatment, shows that other similarly situated employees were treated more favorably.” Bryan v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., 375 F.3d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 2004). Once Spears demonstrates a prima facie case, Patterson must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Spears. Id. If Patterson meets this burden, Spears must then offer sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether (1) Patterson’s reasons are 4 No. 09-10048 false or unworthy of credence and, thus, merely a pretext for discrimination.2 See id. at 312.
Spears successfully establishes a prima facie case of discrimination. The first three elements are easily met: Spears is an African American, was recommended for the position by a supervisor, and was discharged. Patterson challenges only the fourth element of Spears’s prima facie case, arguing both that Spears was not “replaced” but rather that his responsibilities were absorbed by other employees, and that similarly situated employees of several races were also fired under the same circumstances. As the district court correctly explained, Spears met the fourth element because Patterson’s evidence described “who replaced” Spears and Spears’s evidence demonstrated that his replacement was not a member of his protected class. See, e.g., Armendariz v. Pinkerton Tobacco Co., 58 F.3d 144, 149-150 (5th Cir. 1995). 2. Patterson’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason Spears raises an inference of discrimination by meeting his prima facie burden. In order to rebut this inference, Patterson must offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Spears. Patterson asserts that it discharged Spears and his crew for taking too long to perform the “nipple up” procedure. An employee’s poor job performance is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge. Little v. Republic Refining Co., 924 F.2d 93, 96 (5th Cir. 1991). This shifts the burden back to Spears to demonstrate that Patterson’s reason is merely pretext for discrimination. 3. Pretext for discrimination Spears asserts several theories to demonstrate pretext. None of these raise a genuine issue of material fact. 2 Spears could also demonstrate that while true, Patterson’s reason was also motivated by a racial purpose. Spears does not allege that Patterson’s reason was true here. 5 No. 09-10048
Spears first argues that he provided evidence of Patterson’s racial animus by citing five occasions where supervisors Valencia and Gallegos directed derogatory comments or racial slurs towards him. Evidence of animus towards a protected group may indicate pretext. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000). The district court held that evidence of the comments alone was insufficient to raise a fact issue on pretext. Spears failed to provide the Court with the dates of four allegedly discriminatory comments.3 Spears did provide the date for one comment made by Gallegos near the time Spears was discharged. Gallegos told Spears that he no longer disliked African Americans, just whites. This comment, however, is vague. This Court has explained that “comments that are ‘vague and remote in time’ are insufficient to establish discrimination.” Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Guthrie v. Tifco Indus., 941 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1991)). Spears argues that the district court took a narrow view of what comments may constitute indications of racial animus. He argues that the Seventh Circuit has given greater credit to similar evidence. See Hunt v. City of Markham, Ill., 219 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that summary judgment was inappropriate where a decision-maker made repeated racist and ageist remarks). Spears argues that in the context of the other un-dated occurrences when African Americans were called derogatory names and considered bad luck, a jury could reasonably conclude that Gallegos’s comment indicates racial animus. None of this undermines the district court’s conclusion. In Hunt, the Seventh Circuit dealt with comments from decision-makers that were constant, 3 Other comments included the use of the term “mayates,” which is Spanish slang for dark skinned people and means dung beatle. Spears alleges that he was ridiculed for his “ghetto” habits and for dressing like a “gangster.” He also accuses Gallegos of saying that it was “bad luck to have blacks on a rig.” 6 No. 09-10048 specific, and proximate in time. See id. Unlike the plaintiff in Hunt, Spears has provided evidence that many employees on his oil rig made racially derogatory remarks but could neither date them nor link them to the decision-maker. As stated above, comments which are distant in time are insufficient to support a claim of discrimination. Brown, F.3d at 655. The one comment Spears can date is from the decision-maker but only reveals that Gallegos may have harbored racial animus towards African Americans at a point in the past. Such vague evidence does not raise a genuine issue of material fact suggesting pretext for discrimination. See, e.g., Petts v. Rockledge Furniture LLC, 534 F.3d 715, 723 (7th Cir. 2008); Auguster v. Vermillion Parish School Bd., 249 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir. 2001). Spears also argues that this Court’s approach towards comments as evidence of pretext or racial motivation as articulated in Brown was invalidated by the Supreme Court in Reeves. The Court in Reeves denounced the use of a four-part test that was articulated in Brown. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151. The test from Brown required that the comments be (1) related to the protected class, (2) proximate in time to the adverse employment action, (3) made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue, and (4) related to the employment decision at issue. Brown, 82 F.3d at 655. However, Reeves and its progeny explain that derogatory comments must be analyzed according to their content and their speaker. Russell v. McKinney Hospital Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2000). The only comment that is attributable to the decision-maker in this case is Gallegos’s statement that he no longer harbors racial animus towards African Americans. This statement is simply insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext for discrimination because it is vague and only demonstrates past, if any, animus.
Spears offers several other theories that suggest that Patterson’s given 7 No. 09-10048 reason is a pretext for discrimination. He argues that Patterson’s reason–Spears’s crew’s slowness in “nippling up”–is false because it was not the reason originally given to Spears for his discharge. He also points out that Gallegos and a supervisor disagreed about who first recommended the termination. Evidence that an employer has given a false reason for terminating employment may contribute to a determination that the reason was pretext for discrimination. Haun v. Ideal Indus., Inc., 81 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 1996). This does not aid Spears, however, because he fails to offer evidence that the given reason was false. See Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir. 1995). In fact, the evidence confirms that on two occasions this procedure took longer than expected. Spears also argues that Patterson’s reason raises a suspicion of pretext because Patterson did not take required steps prior to the final termination decision. He claims that Patterson’s disciplinary policy requires a written reprimand before termination. Patterson never issued a written reprimand to Spears and Patterson did not launch an investigation into the reason the “nipple up” procedure took longer than ususal. While departure from normal company procedure might contribute to a finding of pretext, Spears must provide evidence that the given reason was false or that his termination was motivated by a discriminatory purpose to survive summary judgment. See Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l., 434 F.3d 327, 336 (5th Cir. 2005). Spears failed to provide evidence that demonstrates either a false reason or a discriminatory motive. Patterson fired Spears’s entire crew, which was made up of members of several racial groups without previous written reprimands or an investigation into the reason for slow performance. Also, all members of Spears’s crew, including the other African American member, have returned to work for Patterson. Spears never reapplied. He alleges the other African American member was rehired after the suit began in order to defeat his claim. The district court dismissed 8 No. 09-10048 this allegation as baseless because Spears was unable to provide the date that the other African American crew-member recommenced work with Patterson. Spears fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact which suggests that Patterson’s given reason is a pretext for discrimination. C. Spears’s Challenge of the “Same Actor Inference” Spears also questions the district court’s conclusion that the “same actor inference” weighs against his evidence of discrimination. The same actor inference creates a presumption that animus was not present where the same actor responsible for the adverse employment action either hired or promoted the employee at issue. Gallegos was involved with both Spears’s promotion and discharge. Spears correctly argues that the presumption created by the same actor inference is not irrebuttable. Haun, 81 F.3d at 546. The district court did not, however, use the “same actor inference” as mandatory in noting that the inference weighs against Spears in his claims that Patterson only rehired his African American crew-member in retaliation for the commencement of this case. That allegation was not supported by evidence. There is no error in the district court’s application of the “same actor inference.”