Opinion ID: 2748542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stone’s Discrimination Claims

Text: Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or 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. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). We use the shorthand term “adverse employment action” to refer to an employment decision that negatively affects the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. See Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 281–82 (5th Cir. 2004). In the context of a racial discrimination claim, adverse employment actions involve “ultimate employment decisions” such as hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, granting leave, and compensating. See Alvarado v. Tex. Rangers, 492 F.3d 605, 612 (5th Cir. 2007); Pegram, 361 F.3d at 282. Because an adverse employment action is an element of a racial discrimination claim, a plaintiff must allege that she suffered an adverse employment action because of racial discrimination. See Raj, 714 F.3d at 331. Stone did not sufficiently allege that she suffered an adverse employment action. Stone alleges that she was denied telecommuting 11 Case: 14-30204 Document: 00512826702 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 No. 14-30204 privileges that were granted to Caucasian employees. She also alleges that she was assigned “desk audits,” which have lower assets then the audits assigned to Caucasian employees. Stone further alleges that Caucasians were assigned as lead auditors. She alleges that her performance was called into question by her supervisor and that her supervisor improperly delayed approval of her audit hours, which impacted Stone’s year end production numbers. Finally, Stone alleges that she was subjected to a racially derogatory remark from her supervisor. Even under liberal reading of Stone’s complaint, the only fact she alleges that could implicate an “ultimate employment decision” was that she was denied the opportunity to be a lead auditor. However, Stone fails to allege facts suggesting that being a lead auditor was akin to being denied a promotion, would affect her compensation, or otherwise be considered a benefit rising to the level of an ultimate employment action. In fact, the entirety of her allegations about being a lead auditor is that her supervisor “once assigned the white employee, Annette Broadway as lead on the out-of-state audit even though [Stone] had more experience and time within the department.” This allegation, without more, does not provide enough factual content to state a plausible claim for relief. Because Stone has failed to allege that she suffered an adverse employment action, she has failed to state a claim for racial discrimination.