Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—W.D. La.: African-American foreman with work-related back injury, demoted, failed to substantiate claims, (Apr 13, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Two weeks after his injury and EEOC charge, he was terminated after violating his employer’s mobile device policy twice in 72 hours.

An African-American construction foreman for a liquified natural gas facility, fired by CB&I, LLC, after he was demoted, injured his back at work, and filed an EEOC charge, failed to substantiate his claims of race discrimination, disability discrimination, or retaliation, a federal district court found. He did not establish that his complaints to supervisors and HR about unfair treatment related to race or that someone with decision-making authority over his employment knew that he filed an EEOC charge. In addition, the employer established that his demotion resulted from the merger of his three-member crew with another one, and the former employee admitted at least twice during his deposition that his back injury did not cause his termination (Landry v. CB&I, LLC, No. 21-2714 (W.D. La. Apr. 10, 2026)).

Construction foreman. CB&I, LLC, hired the plaintiff as a foreman on the construction of a liquified natural gas facility. About 16 months later, the employer merged his labor crew with that of another foreman, who is white, because their respective crews had become too small.

White foreman retained position. CB&I named the other foreman as the supervisor of the merged crew, and the employee, in turn, alleged that it did so because of his race.

Injury and EEOC charge. Perhaps coincidentally, said the court, the first day after his demotion the employee both injured himself when moving field equipment at work and filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

Discharge for mobile device violations. Two weeks after his injury and EEOC charge, CB&I fired him after he violated its mobile device policy twice in 72 hours. In turn, he alleged that his firing was either because of his injury or in retaliation for filing the charge.

Lawsuit. He sued, alleging race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e based on his demotion or discharge, race discrimination based on his demotion, ADA disability discrimination based on his termination following the injury, and Title VII retaliation. CB&I moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Title VII retaliation. Granting the employer’s motion, the court first found that the former employee failed to establish retaliation in violation of Title VII. He alleged that he complained to supervisors and HR about alleged racial harassment and preferential treatment and that his complaints resulted in his demotion, but he failed to produce any evidence that his complaints—about unfair treatment and without a reference to his race—related to race.

The former employee also alleged that his EEOC charge led to his termination, but he could not establish a causal connection based on a 10-day temporal proximity alone because he failed to provide any evidence that a decisionmaker responsible for his termination knew that he filed the charge.

Demotion and Title VII discrimination. The former employee also failed to establish that CB&I discriminated against him when it demoted him in favor of a less qualified, white employee. Based on his own testimony, the company’s general foreman informed him that his crew had less than “eight members” and would be merged with another crew. The former employee did not dispute that his crew consisted of only three people, he admitted that he did not know why the general foreman decided to give his crew to the white foreman, and merging the plaintiff’s labor crew into another one because of its size was a legitimate, non-discriminatory business decision that the court declined to “second guess.”

ADA discrimination. Finally, summary judgment was also appropriate against the employee’s ADA discrimination claim. Here, he alleged that CB&I terminated him because of his back injury, which he suffered on the first day after his demotion. But he could not establish a causal connection between the injury and discharge because he admitted, at least twice during his deposition, that his back injury did not cause his termination.

The case is No. 21-2714.

Judge: Van Hook, A.

Attorneys: Keithen R. Landry, pro se. Christopher E. Moore (Ogletree, Deakins) for CB&I, LLC.

Companies: CB&I, LLC

Cases: RaceDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation LouisianaNews