Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving race and national origin discrimination, (Jan 10, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent decisions involving race and national origin discrimination claims of interest to the labor and employment law community.

S.D. Tex.: Discharged African American employee sufficiently raised issue of pretext. An African American oil company employee from Nigeria was discharged following a company reorganization in 2020. The employee, who had previously suffered an on-the-job injury requiring surgery, sued the company, alleging that his termination was based on race, color, national origin, and alternatively, disability, in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII. The company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the discharge was not discriminatory, and that the employee was not disabled at the time of his termination. The court denied the company's motion for summary judgment regarding race, color, and national origin discrimination claims, finding that the employee established a prima facie case and presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the company's stated reasons for his discharge were pretextual. The court noted inconsistencies in the company’s explanations and a lack of specific, documented criteria for the discharge decision. However, the court granted summary judgment on the disability discrimination claim, noting that the employee had returned to work without restrictions or accommodation following his recovery from surgery for his injury (Udoka v. Shell Pipeline Co., L.P., No. 4:22-cv-04374 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2024)).

N.D. Tex.: Employee was terminated after threatening EEOC complaint. An African American former employee of a marketing company claimed that her direct supervisor “often got angry with her and expressed that he thought she was an angry person,” which she perceived as ethnic stereotyping, and her attempts to address these concerns with higher management and human resources were unfruitful. After threatening to file an EEOC complaint, the employee was informed that she would need to find another position within the company or face termination, which ultimately occurred. She sued the company, alleging race, color, and national origin discrimination under Title VII, Section 1981, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA); and retaliation under Title VII and the TCHRA. The company moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims, finding that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not provide evidence that similarly situated comparators outside of her protected classes were treated more favorably. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding that the employee produced “sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that retaliation was the but-for cause of her termination…” (Johnson v. Epsilon Data Management, LLC, No. 3:23-CV-1016-D (N.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2024)).

E.D. Pa.: County employees alleged termination was due to speech, not drinking on the job. Former dispatchers and supervisors of a county 911 call center sued the county and several county directors and administrators alleging that their terminations were retaliatory, following their complaints about racial and sexual discrimination, waste, and misconduct at their workplace, claiming violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, among other allegations. The former dispatchers and supervisors argued that their on-duty alcohol consumption during a “ceremonial New Year’s Eve toast prepared by another supervisor”—who had allegedly received permission to conduct the toast—was used as a pretext for their dismissals. The county and executives moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that the former employees did not provide sufficient evidence to show that their speech was “a substantial and motivating factor” in the alleged retaliatory actions, as required for a First Amendment retaliation claim. Furthermore, the court found that the employees’ claims failed the stigma test. The court also dismissed the employees’ hostile work environment, civil conspiracy, supervisory liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims (Zucal v. County of Lehigh, No. 5:21-cv-04598-JMG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2024)).

E.D. Mich.: Yemeni American Muslim employee sufficiently alleged discrimination claims. A Yemeni American Muslim steel company employee sued the company alleging race, religion, and national origin discrimination under Title VII, Section 1981, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), as well as retaliation and hostile work environment under Title VII and ELCRA. The employee claimed he was subjected to verbal harassment, and denied training and overtime opportunities because of his identity, and faced retaliation after filing grievances. The company moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee “suffered an adverse employment action,” “was treated less favorably than his similarly situated coworkers,” and lost overtime and training opportunities when compared to similarly situated coworkers. The employee presented “sufficient evidence for his prima facie claims for race, national origin, and religious discrimination,” as well as his retaliation and hostile work environment claims (Muflihi v. U.S. Steel Corp., No. 2:22-cv-12609-GAD-EAS (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2024)).

E.D. Pa.: Agency had legitimate reasons for non-selection of employee for promotions. A 60-year-old African American male employee of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) contended that he was repeatedly overlooked for promotions in favor of younger, white female candidates, despite his qualifications. He specifically cited instances where he was not selected for various positions, including temporary and permanent roles in Philadelphia and other locations, which were instead filled by candidates he alleged were less qualified. The employee had filed several complaints with the EEOC, and subsequently sued OPM via its Director, alleging three claims of age, race, and sex discrimination, and one claim of retaliation, in violation of the ADEA and Title VII. The OPM moved for summary judgment, arguing that there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its selection decisions, including the chosen candidates’ local status, previous experience, and “familiarity with the office staff and local projects.” The court found these reasons to be sufficient and held that the employee failed to show pretext. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, concluding that there was no causal link between the employee’s EEOC participation and the non-selection for the permanent Philadelphia position (Sample v. Ahuja, No. 2:21-cv-01239-LAS (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2024)).

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination NationalOrigin ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge WageHour Retaliation StateLawClaims IndividualRights PublicEmployees