Written by: Brendan Besh
Although we are only little more than a month into the new year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has already provided important updates for employers in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. In January, the Fifth Circuit has ruled in favor of employers in two separate cases where the employer allegedly engaged in discrimination in violation of Title VII. The two decisions in question, Hudson v. Lincare, Inc., and Rahman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., not only stand as important discussions of the Circuit’s review of Title VII but also clarify the duties of employers to respond to allegations of racial harassment in a prompt, reasonable, and effective manner and to provide adequate and fair training to all employees.
In Hudson v. Lincare, Inc., the plaintiff, a sales representative, was subjected to racial harassment while working at the defendant’s Austin office. Hudson v. Lincare, Inc., No. 22-50149 (5th Circuit January 18, 2023). The plaintiff claimed that she was the target of severally racially insensitive comments as well as directed slurs. Additionally, the plaintiff contends that she was punished by other sale representatives after reporting those statements to the company’s human resources department. Plaintiff left Defendant’s business for another job in August 2019. On her exit, she informed the human resources department that she resigned because of perceived racial harassment and discrimination.
While the plaintiff sued her employer under Title VII under hostile work environment as well as retaliation theories, the district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment in full. On review, the Fifth Circuit held that the employer took proper remedial action after the alleged racial harassment was reported. Specifically, the employer notified the employees who allegedly engaged in racial discrimination that another instance of racial slurs would result in their termination. The Court held that “Because of its prompt and effective response, [the employer] cannot be liable under Title VII for creating a hostile work environment.” Id. at *10.
In analyzing the retaliation claim, the Court employed the McDonnel Douglas burden-shifting framework, under which a plaintiff must show that “(1) he engaged in conduct protected by Title VII; (2) he suffered a materially adverse action; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Cabral v. Brennan, 853 F.3d 763, 766–67 (5th Cir. 2017); see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action even when she was placed on a “formal action plan” as there was no evidence that the plan affected her title, hours, salary, benefits, or reputation. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the company took prompt corrective action after learning about the reports of perceived racial harassment and did not retaliate against the employee.
Furthermore, in Rahman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., a trainee sued Exxon Mobil after he was let go from the company, claiming that he was fired as a response to his inadequate training. Rahman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 21-30669 (5th Circuit January 10, 2023). The trainee then sued Exxon for race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, maintaining that Exxon “deliberate[ly] and intentional[ly]” inadequately trained him due to his race. For evidence, the trainee alleged that his fellow trainee, who was not of a protected class, passed the final walkthrough even though he “had no greater knowledge or ability or education.” Second, with the qualification card, the trainee argued he only received two days of training from his trainer on material that should have taken two weeks to teach, demonstrating that his white classmate’s card evidenced about fifteen days of training on the same subjects. However, the district court disagreed with the trainee and granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the inadequate training argument failed to constitute an adverse employment action.
On review, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that a failure to train, in some circumstances, can constitute an adverse action if s if it is “so significant and material that it rises to the level of an adverse employment action.” Citing Thompson v. City of Waco, 764 F.3d 500, 504 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, the Court held, “So, considering our precedent, we plainly hold now that an inadequate training theory can satisfy the adverse action prong of McDonnell Douglas if the training is directly tied to the worker’s job duties, compensation, or benefits.” Rahman at *7. However, the Court did not find the failure to train theory satisfied under the facts of the case as there was greater evidence of equality in the training among the trainees than what was alleged by the plaintiff. In conclusion, “because we cannot say [the plaintiff] wasn’t given a similar opportunity to train or that Exxon never gave him a chance,” the Court held that the inadequate training claim failed under the circumstances.
While both cases illustrate different obligations of employers, they both underscore the importance of taking proactive steps in the realm of employment law. As evidenced in Hudson v. Lincare, Inc., prompt and effective responses from a well-trained human resources are crucial in reflecting a business’ willingness to comply with Title VII and help protect employers from liability under those circumstances. The Fifth Circuit has recognized that a business’s policies and training regarding reporting and addressing racial discrimination can provide an effective shield from litigation. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has recently demonstrated the importance of equality within training a new employee, as circumstances could arise in the future where a Court could find that Title VII has been violated based on failing to train employees for discriminatory purposes.
As a practical insight, these cases underscore the importance of implementing training, policies, and procedures to prevent and ameliorate workplace discrimination while also satisfying the policy goals of Title VII.