Opinion ID: 2716182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spencer’s claim of retaliation

Text: “Title VII prohibits retaliation against employees who engage in protected conduct,” such as filing a charge of harassment or discrimination. Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 2002). To make out a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) he 9 Case: 13-20282 Document: 00512722328 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 No. 13-20282 engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) the employer took an adverse employment action against the employee; and (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Brazoria Cnty. v. EEOC, 391 F.3d 685, 692 (5th Cir. 2004). The district court concluded Spencer had established the first element of his claim, as he had complained about the text message to a representative in the union. 1 The claim failed, however, because the court concluded Spencer had not established he suffered an adverse employment action. Such an action is one by the employer that “a reasonable employee would have found . . . [to be] materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (quotation marks omitted). “[N]ormally, petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence.” Id. The court never discussed causation or whether the retaliation was by the employer. Spencer complains of two incidents that allegedly occurred after he reported the text message to the union. The first was when Vidrine, Machen, and others cursed him. The district court did not err in concluding that curses are the sort of “minor annoyances [or] simple lack of good manners” not actionable for a Title VII retaliation claim. Id. The next claimed incident was being cornered in a room on the jobsite by Vidrine and Machen. Spencer felt he could not get out. He thought it was “safe 1Neither party disputes the district court’s conclusion that Spencer had met the first prong by engaging in protected activity. Accordingly, we do not address whether Spencer’s reporting the text message to a union representative — rather than anyone in Schmidt’s management — is sufficient to trigger Title VII’s retaliation provision. 10 Case: 13-20282 Document: 00512722328 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 No. 13-20282 to answer their questions,” though one of the men stood in the doorway while the other man circled him. They did not directly threaten him, but one of them asked if Spencer felt he was safe. He said he did not. They also insisted he tell them to whom he had shown the text message and who else knew about it. Spencer testified that he thought he was in danger because the work site included live voltage, but it was unclear whether he was referring to those dangers generally at the work site or specific dangers in the room at the time of this incident. Regardless, a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that Vidrine and Machen were seeking to intimidate Spencer. If that were the finding, such intimidation also would need to rise to a level that it “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The district court found Vidrine’s and Machen’s conduct did not ascend to that level, but that was “a closer question” than the allegations he had been cursed by the foremen. We do not decide whether the district court’s conclusion was correct. We note that even if the intimidation was of the requisite severity, Spencer must also establish that the employer was effectively the intimidator, and “that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2528 (2013). The district court never addressed these elements of Spencer’s retaliation claim. Even so, “we may affirm a summary judgment on any ground supported by the record.” McIntosh v. Partridge, 540 F.3d 315, 326 (5th Cir. 2008). We find it sufficient to resolve this issue based on the requirement that any alleged retaliation must be by the employer, Schmidt. Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300, 306 (5th Cir. 1996). Title VII defines an “employer” to be “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . , and any agent of such a person . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). 11 Case: 13-20282 Document: 00512722328 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 No. 13-20282 Not all employees of the employer are agents for purposes of a retaliation claim. Canutillo Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Leija, 101 F.3d 393, 401 (5th Cir. 1996) (analyzing Title VII law and applying it to a Title IX claim). We quoted the Supreme Court on this distinction: “Congress’ decision to define ‘employer’ to include ‘any agent’ of an employer . . . surely evinces an intent to place some limits on the acts of employees for which employers under Title VII are to be held responsible.” Id. (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986). Therefore, employers are not “liable under Title VII for every discriminatory act committed by employees in the workplace” but only “in accordance with common law agency principles, for the acts of employees committed in furtherance of the employer’s business.” Long, 88 F.3d at 306. An agent for these purposes is “someone who serves in a supervisory position and exercises significant control over . . . hiring, firing, or conditions of employment.” Canutillo Indep. Sch. Dist., 101 F.3d at 401. We have already discussed in the context of Spencer’s hostile work environment claim that there is no evidence that the same two foremen who took the allegedly retaliatory action against Spencer were empowered by Schmidt to exercise any control over hiring, firing, or the conditions of Spencer’s employment. The testimony revealed that foremen were charged with directing and overseeing Spencer’s work on the job site. Specifically, there was testimony that members of the union were assigned to certain projects by the union and, per the collective bargaining agreement, Schmidt was then required to appoint foremen to oversee work on the site. Ben Frank stated he did not consider foremen to be supervisors because they could be a “foreman today and a journeyman tomorrow,” and he did not always have the opportunity to get to know the employees on a site well-enough to select foremen based on ability or qualification. Frank’s testimony makes it clear that status as a foreman was 12 Case: 13-20282 Document: 00512722328 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 No. 13-20282 not something that gave that individual authority over Spencer. There were other Schmidt employees on site who controlled Spencer’s employment status and had authority and responsibility to act in the interests of Schmidt. It would violate common law agency principles to say that Schmidt should be held liable for the conduct of foremen, who were not empowered by Schmidt to represent the company’s interests on site. Because Vidrine’s and Machen’s actions cannot be attributed to the employer, Schmidt cannot be held liable under Title VII for the intimidation, even if it was in retaliation for Spencer’s engaging in protected activity. We conclude Spencer cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation due to his failure to allege that when Vidrine and Machen cornered and questioned Spencer, they were acting as agents for the employer Schmidt serving in a supervisory position in furtherance of the company’s interests. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Schmidt on Spencer’s retaliation claim.