Rose-Colored Glasses Don’t Save Plaintiff’s Discrimination Claim

Establishing that an employer’s stated legitimate reason for an adverse action is a “pretext” for discrimination requires more than a former employee’s word for it.

So held the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit when affirming the Massachusetts district court’s summary judgment ruling in Boykin v. Genzyme Therapeutic Products, LP [Genzyme] and Beausoleil.

First, let’s examine the facts…

Boykin, an African-American man, worked for Genzyme investigating deviations from the company’s standard manufacturing processes.

After a few years, his direct supervisor and the supervisor’s superior, Beausoleil, (separately) discussed the pace of Boykin’s work with him. Then, the head of finance at the site publicly criticized Boykin when Genzyme failed an external audit. Boykin felt this was race-based discrimination, complained to HR, and the finance guy apologized.

Case closed? Nope.

Around this same time, while Boykin mopped up ice melt in the facility, Beausoleil allegedly said, within Boykin’s hearing, "we finally have a job he [the plaintiff] can handle." Boykin and a nearby co-worker both deemed this comment as expressing a racial stereotype.

At the end of the year, Boykin received the equivalent of a “C+” on his performance review. It was going to be an “A,” but Beausoleil lowered it to the C (+, maybe). When Boykin asked why Beausoleil lowered his rating, the superior allegedly stated that Beausoleil believed that Boykin was "making too much money."

Boykin was displeased, went on medical leave, left, and sued Genzyme for race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation in violation of various federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and state laws.

How Does A Plaintiff Prove Race Discrimination?

The First Circuit outlined the three-step burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas.

First, the plaintiff (the employee in these cases) must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that (1) they are a member of a protected group, (2) they were qualified for the job, and (3) the plaintiff was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Second, the defendant employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for the adverse employment action.

Third, and finally, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's justification is a pretext for discrimination.

https://pixabay.com/users/juliush-3921568/

Why Couldn’t This Plaintiff Show A “Pretext” for Discrimination

TL;DR: the First Circuit found that Boykin failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of pretext.

Evidence wins cases, generally.

What do I mean by pretext? Pretext means what it sounds like - when an employer provides a legitimate non-discriminatory basis for a termination, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to then show that really, the “legitimate” basis is just an excuse, i.e., a b.s. reason for the termination.

A court is not just going to infer discrimination, without more.

Here, the court provides several reasons for its decision. First, the court explained that pretext must be measured from the perspective of the relevant decision-maker, which in this case was Beausoleil, but the Beausoleil decreased Boykin’s rating because of what his superior said.

Then, the court noted that Boykin’s interpretation of Beausoleil's comment about his salary is speculative and ignores the possibility of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory view.

Finally, the court explained that an isolated, ambiguous remark by Beausoleil was not enough to prove discriminatory intent without additional evidence.

The bottom line is that the record contained no evidence from which a jury could conclude, without making insupportable inferences, “that the defendants’ proffered reason for the plaintiff’s negative performance review was a pretext for racial discrimination.”

The court found the supervisor’s comments when Boykin mopped the floor and received his rating to be insufficient and speculative:

We think that the plaintiff reads the record through rose-colored glasses. The plaintiff's argument might be a possibility, but it is not backed by the “definite, competent evidence,” … that we regularly require in order to stave off the swing of the summary judgment.

In other words, to show pretext, there must be a “there” there supported by the evidence and not just the plaintiff’s belief that racial animus exists.

That’s not to say it doesn’t. But, as has long been the case, isolated or ambiguous comments are not enough to prove discriminatory intent. They certainly do not show pretext.