Employees Must Provide Actual Evidence of Discrimination to Defeat Summary Judgment
This post is a little more lawyerly than usual.
I read an opinion last night from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirming the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the employer.
That’s the dream for employers, right? You win on the pleadings, and the case is done.
Sometimes, it works out that way, and other times a former employee gets to tell their story to a jury of their peers.
Ayorinde v. Team Industrial Services Inc.
Mr. Ayorinde sued his former employer, Team Industrial Services, Inc. (“Team”), for a laundry list of discrimination claims including race and age discrimination, an equal pay violation based on race, and retaliation.
Ayorinde’s journey with Team began in 2016 and hit a bump in 2018 when Team terminated him for “job abandonment.” Fast forward to 2022, and Team rehires Ayorinde.
But…concerns about his work quality and professionalism led to a demotion and a pay cut, which, surprise surprise, Human Resources did not approve.
Ayorinde discovered the unauthorized pay cut while out on bereavement leave. Team reasonably quickly reinstated his original pay rate and paid him the difference.
Sounds OK, right? I thought so, but Ayorinde wasn’t having it.
He resigned, citing a hostile work environment and discrimination, and legal fireworks ensued.
The 5th Circuit Affirmed - Ayorinde Presented No Evidence To Merit Reversal.
The first part was easy for the appellate court—neither the Equal Pay Act nor the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act covers race discrimination, only sex discrimination, a claim that Ayorinde failed to allege.
The former employee also sued Team for race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
However, the Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, stating that Ayorinde failed to show that “similarly situated” employees outside his protected group were treated more favorably. It held:
To make out a prima facie case of race discrimination at the first step of McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he: “(1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment action by the employer; and (4) … was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group. Here, the district court concluded that Ayorinde has failed to establish a prima facie case for his race discrimination claim because he has provided “no evidence identifying someone, or anyone, similarly situated who was treated more favorably because of race.” [internal citations omitted.]
No evidence, no dice. That’s how it works.
Ayordinde’s claims for retaliation and a hostile work environment fared no better.
First, to establish a claim for retaliation, an employee need only demonstrate that (1) they engaged in a “statutorily protected activity” by complaining of or opposing an employment practice which they have a good faith, reasonable basis to believe is unlawful; (2) an “adverse employment action” was taken by the employer; and (3) there is some causal connection between the two, i.e., an adverse action following a statutorily protected activity.
Here, Ayorinde provided no evidence that he engaged in any protected activity and then his supervisor retaliated against him, or that any adverse action was retaliatory.
Conclusory statements don’t cut it to defeat summary judgment.
Likewise, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of severe or pervasive harassment based on race—another swing and a miss.
Generally, as I wrote about here, to qualify as a hostile work environment, behavior has to be “severe or pervasive” enough to interfere with an affected employee’s ability to perform their job — and it has to be both subjectively (in the harassee’s or witness’s eyes) and objectively (to a reasonable person) hostile or offensive.
Again, Ayorinde submitted no evidence.
There was no “there” there.
As a result, and unsurprisingly, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in full, in favor of Team.
A Few Takeaways
When it comes to discrimination claims, an employee needs to allege more than just a hunch and a handful of allegations.
That said, Team DOCUMENTED Ayorinde’s performance issues, demotion, and pay cut, which played a crucial role in its defense. Employers should ensure that all employment actions, especially those involving discipline or termination, are well-documented and supported by clear, objective evidence.
This employer also issued prompt, remedial action when it realized that the employee’s pay cut was not authorized. It reinstated his original pay and paid him the difference. Score two for Team.
Treat employees consistently and uniformly to avoid disparate treatment based on race (or sex, age, disability, etc.). Here, Ayorinde could not demonstrate, as he had to do, that similarly situated employees outside his protected group were treated more favorably, which proved was fatal to his discrimination claims.