Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Miss.: White HR representative, fired for contributing to perceived racial disparities, partially advances claim, (Jan 17, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

A comment that she had “created an environment like a 2022 plantation” was referenced during her termination and her position was later filled by a Black woman.

Granting summary judgment against the Section 1981 racial discrimination claims brought forth by a former Boeing HR representative, a federal district court in Mississippi nevertheless allowed her Title VII claim for racial discrimination to proceed as a reasonable juror could determine that race was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate the employee. The employee, among other things, had allegedly delayed approving a recognition award to be given to two Black employees, outwardly stated that she was concerned that she might not share her employer’s values, and had created a perception of racial disparities, issues that ultimately contributed to the decision to terminate her employment (Winstead v. Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-30-SA-RP (N.D. Miss. Jan. 16, 2025)).

The individual who brought this action is a white woman who worked as an HR representative for an airplane parts manufacturer in Columbus, Mississippi, from August 2018 until her termination on April 8, 2022.

Recognition awards. As part of her duties, the employee was tasked with reviewing and approving immediate recognition awards. These awards are $100 bonuses given to employees for going above and beyond the scope of their typical job duties. Workers were nominated for awards and they were handed out based on HR approval. Awards were approved once per month, meaning sometimes employees may not receive their award until five to six weeks after they had been nominated.

In January 2022, an issue arose regarding immediate recognition awards for two Black workers that the employee had not approved. The employee felt that the workers had not gone above and beyond their normal duties, and allegedly asked her supervisors several times whether the awards should be approved or whether the guidelines should be changed to allow the nominations for approval.

When she was finally instructed to approve the awards, she did not immediately do so due to “the timing issue” that sometimes caused a delay in receipt of the awards. She contended that the workers would not have received the recognition any sooner if she had approved the awards immediately.

Black History Month display. In February 2022, a Black senior engineer requested that the employee put information regarding Black History Month on the electronic bulletin board. The engineer had allegedly already received approval from the plant manager but was told to discuss the matter with the employee.

Unaware that the plant manager had approved the display, the employee appeared hesitant to allow it and stated that she would need to discuss the request with others before giving her approval.

Promotion request. Separately, in February or March 2022, the employee was involved in discussions regarding the senior engineer’s request for a promotion. The engineer had recently obtained a master’s degree, making her eligible for the promotion. According to the employee’s supervisor, the request had been expedited because the engineer was considering another job offer. According to the employee, the promotion would have violated the employer’s guidelines.

During a meeting between the employee and the engineer, the employee attempted to sympathize with the feeling of being underpaid. The engineer reported to the employee’s supervisor that the employee had told her minorities were being underpaid.

In the course of another conversation, the engineer told her manager and the employee that she believed she was being denied the promotion because of her race. Thereafter, her promotion was approved. The employee believed that the promotion came about due to an exception made to company guidelines due to a complaint of racism.

Health information. Around this time, the employee told an engineering director that another worker had had a reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Perceptions. In early April 2022, one of the employee’s supervisors traveled to Mississippi to conduct a site visit after assuming her new role as HR director. En route, she received an email from a Black IT manager regarding another Black IT employee who was planning to resign due to his complaints about the employee.

During her site visit, the HR director met with four other Black workers who had complaints about the employee. Two of those workers complained that working at the plant was like working at a plantation, with at least one observing that the management building contained only white employees and the Black employees worked in a separate building.

Values. On the HR director’s last day at the site, she met with the employee. During their conversation, the employee discussed her concerns with engineer’s promotion request “and all the racial things that were going on.” She further expressed concern about her values aligning with those of the company because she felt the company was trying to implement affirmative action. Further, she had expressed her reservations about the company’s COVID vaccine policy and using the bulletin board for ways in which it was not designed.

Termination. After her visit, the HR director met with the chief HR officer and the company’s in-house counsel. The three initially discussed placing the employee on a performance improvement plan. However, the in-house counsel stated that it would be okay to terminate the employee right away. Ultimately, the decision was made to terminate the employee due to the lack of judgment she displayed when she admitted that she did not share the company’s values and failed to follow instructions to approve the immediate recognition awards, the perception of employees, and the sharing of protected health information.

When the employee was terminated over the phone, the HR director allegedly told her that she was being terminated because she “set the environment of a plantation.” Three months later, a Black candidate was hired to replace the employee.

Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII. The employer moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. It was undisputed that the employee had produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. Thus, the court’s analysis began with the employer’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision. The employer pointed to the alleged creation of racial disparities, the perception of employees, failing to follow instructions, sharing protected health information, and the employee expressing concern about her own values, all of which were sufficient to satisfy its burden.

Pretext. Shifting the burden back to the employee to show pretext, she failed to dispute two of the employer’s specific proffered reasons, rendering her unable to satisfy her burden on this point.

Workers’ perceptions. First, although the employee disputed whether she treated Black workers differently, she did not dispute that Black workers perceived her actions as discriminatory. She also did not dispute that several workers had complained that she was treating Black workers differently.

To demonstrate pretext, the employee essentially argued that she did not discriminate against any workers, providing nondiscriminatory explanations for her actions, including her interpretation of company guidelines.

The problem, explained the court, was that these arguments were directed at an entirely different aspect of the company’s reasoning—whether the employee had created racial disparities by treating Black employees differently. That reason was distinguishable from the one at issue here, which was the workers’ perception that she was making decisions based on race. Thus, she failed to create a factual dispute as to this aspect of the company’s reasoning, said the court.

Values questioned. Next, the court turned its attention to the company’s assertion that the employee was terminated in part based on her own statement that she might not share the company’s values, an assertion that also went unchallenged by the employee.

Because the employee had failed to dispute these two nondiscriminatory reasons given for her termination, she was unable to demonstrate pretext. Accordingly, her Section 1981 claim failed because she was unable to prove that race was the but-for cause of her termination. However, she could still overcome summary judgment on her Title VII claim by showing that her race was a motivating factor in the termination decision.

Plantation. When the HR director terminated the employee over the phone, she told the employee that others had described to her that the employee had “created an environment like a 2022 plantation.” The company contended that none of the complaints it received about the employee were about her race. The court disagreed, explaining that a reasonable juror could find that the complaints invoking the image of a plantation necessarily implicated the employee’s race.

A reasonable juror could further conclude that the decisionmakers placed significant weight on the plantation comment given that it was cited as a reason for the termination decision while the employee was being told that she was being fired.

Black replacement. In addition, at least one of the workers who described the plant as a plantation did so because all of the employees in the management building were white. A reasonable juror could find that this complaint gave the company a desire to change the racial makeup of the building, a conclusion that could be especially reached given the employee was replaced by Black candidate, observed the court.

Viewing all of this evidence together, a reasonable juror could conclude that the employee’s race was a motivating factor in the termination decision. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment against the employee’s Title VII claim was denied.

The case is No. 1:23-CV-30-SA-RP.

Judge: Aycock, S.

Attorneys: Jim D. Waide, III (Waide & Associates) for Lisa Winstead. Melissa Kimberly Hodges (Ogletree, Deakins) for Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc. dba Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.

Companies: Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc.; Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge MississippiNews