Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D. La.: International Paper employee who failed certification test cannot show bias, (Jun 26, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although the employee experienced delays during his training, those delays were due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and he received two additional months of study time.

Granting summary judgment against Section 1981 race discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a systems operator against International Paper, a federal district court in Louisiana found that, because the employee did not pass the required certification test for a promotion, he could not be said to be a qualified individual for that role. Further, he was not similarly situated to a comparator who was granted extra time to retest, as the proffered comparator timely submitted paperwork within the 30-day testing window while the employee did not. As to his retaliation claim, there was no evidence he suffered any adverse action after complaining of race discrimination to HR and then continuing to work in his position without any sort of disciplinary action, demotion, or denial of pay (West v. International Paper Co., No. 22-5738 (W.D. La. June 25, 2025)).

Hired in 2004, the employee, an African-American man, works in the position of C Systems Operator in a control room at an International Paper mill.

Applied for promotion. On December 2, 2019, the employee applied for a promotion to A Systems Operator and was permitted to enter the six-month certification process. As part of the certification process, employees must train for a certain number of hours and pass a certification exam within six months—in this case June 23, 2020—or return to the position held before the promotion. If an employee fails to timely pass, they must wait 12 months before trying again.

Training delays. According to the employee, there were several delays throughout his attempt to certify, including pushed-back meetings and reassignments to duties outside of the control room. He also asserted that he was not assigned to any special projects during his training window.

In response, the employer asserted that any delays were due to COVID-19 protocols that resulted in the employee receiving an additional two months of study time. Indeed, the employee did not sit for his certification exam until August 18, 2020.

Exam. A certification panel administers the exam and employees are required to answer a series of critical questions relating to the A Systems Operator position. According to the employer, the employee failed to correctly answer multiple questions. When it became clear that he would not achieve the 90 percent threshold needed to pass, the exam was terminated.

Retesting opportunity. As part of his claim, the employee asserted that he was not provided with another opportunity to certify. He contrasted this with the case of a white worker who, despite failing the exam, was allowed to retest.

Pursuant to the employer’s policy, an employee is allowed to retest if they have additional time available. In order to retest, an employee must turn in their certification paperwork before the stipulated 30-day window prior to the test date. The employer asserted that the white worker was only allowed to retest because he turned in his forms during this window, and the employee did not submit his paperwork in time.

Complaint. Subsequently, the employee filed a complaint with HR alleging racial discrimination in the training and certification process. Following that complaint, he alleged that he was retaliated against by being excluded from control room shift opportunities. He later filed this lawsuit.

Qualified? First addressing the employee’s racial discrimination claim, the employer argued that the employee was not qualified for the position of A Systems Operator because a qualified individual must have passed a certification exam and the employee had failed to do so. In response, the employee contended that the exam’s grading was inherently subjective. The court agreed with the employer that the employee could not be said to be a qualified individual.

Subjective criteria. Assuming that the employee could establish a prima facie case for race discrimination and that the employer had met its burden of showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promoting other applicants, the court explained that the Fifth Circuit has made it clear that subjective criteria alone is not sufficient to show pretext. In this instance, the employee proffered no evidence that the exam’s alleged subjectivity was used to mask discrimination.

Comparator evidence. Turning to the employee’s proffered comparators, the court found that he had failed to show that he was treated less favorably or that the comparators were similarly situated. Two comparators were applying for different positions and were thus subject to a different testing standard. As to the white coworker who was allowed to retest, it was again pointed out that he was allowed to do so because he submitted his paperwork within the employer’s required timeframe while the employee had failed to do so.

Training time, special projects. As to the employee’s claim that white workers received more training time and access to special projects, the court noted that the employee received the full 168 hours of training required under the employer’s policy. The employer again pointed out that any training delays were due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

With regard to special projects, the employee conceded he never expressed any interest in participating and that the only evidence of others being allowed to work on special projects occurred between 2021 and 2022—a time when the employee was on medical leave.

Both the employer’s COVID-19 protocols and the fact that the employee was on medical leave during the timeframe for the cited evidence were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons that could account for the discrepancies in start times and special projects, said the court. As such, he failed to show that similarly situated white employees received these opportunities under comparable circumstances.

Pulled from training. Finally, the employee alleged that he was called off training to work due to the employer being short-staffed while white coworkers were not required to do so. According to the employer, the employee was the only candidate for the A Systems Operator position at the time, and during at least one point he was pulled away from training to work on a job that an A Systems Operator is responsible for, effectively providing him training on equipment for the job in which he was seeking a promotion. Further, the employer argued that being short-staffed is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to call someone away from training and reiterated that COVID-19 altered its training protocols.

Agreeing with the employer that these were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for pulling the employee from training and finding that the employee failed to show that these reasons were pretextual, the court found he could not meet his burden to show he suffered from racial discrimination in violation of Section 1981, and this claim was dismissed.

Retaliation. Next, the court considered the employee’s retaliation claim. He alleged that he was banned from all control room training and working as a substitute in retaliation for reporting race discrimination. The employer did not dispute that the complaint to HR constituted protected activity. However, it asserted that the employee could not satisfy the remaining elements of his claim.

According to the employer, the employee suffered no adverse action, continued to work in the control room, never faced discipline, was not demoted and was never denied pay. Further, the employee admitted in his deposition that he had no evidence that his managers were aware of the complaint to HR or that they took any action in response. Accordingly, the court found that this claim failed as a matter of law.

The case is No. 22-5738.

Judge: Edwards, J., Jr.

Attorneys: Natalie Shalane Blackman (Law Offices of Natalie Blackman) for Gabriel West. Andrew Michael Albritton (McGlinchey Stafford) for International Paper Co.

Companies: International Paper Co.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation Covid19 LouisianaNews