Dive Brief:
- A healthcare information technology firm may have “overreacted” in its decision to fire an employee less than three months after she reported her manager for alleged racial and gender bias, but the proximity between the decision and the report didn’t show unlawful retaliation, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a March 26 decision.
- The plaintiff in Green v. HCTec Partners, LLC, a Black woman, complained to HR in February 2021 that her manager, a Black man, treated her differently than her co-worker, a White man, on the basis of her race and gender. A few months later, in May, the manager fired the plaintiff after he allegedly uncovered inappropriate and insubordinate electronic messages sent by the plaintiff to co-workers.
- The plaintiff claimed her firing constituted unlawful discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but the district court and 5th Circuit granted summary judgment to the employer. Though it noted that the timing between the HR report and firing was “relatively close” and that the firing itself was questionable, the 5th Circuit ultimately held that the plaintiff failed to prove her claims.
Dive Insight:
In its analysis, the 5th Circuit offered a light critique of the employer’s choice to terminate the plaintiff without giving her the opportunity to defend herself or to clarify any ambiguities or mistaken conclusions that may have been drawn from her communications. But in doing so, the court also stressed that it was not tasked with evaluating the fairness of such HR decisions.
“Employers are entitled to be unreasonable as long as they are not unreasonable in a manner that is racist or sexist, and the employee’s legally ‘protected activity’ is not the but-for cause of that unreasonableness,” the court said. It added that it understood the employer’s perception of the plaintiff’s conduct, “accurate or not,” was the basis for her termination.
The decision is an example of federal courts’ general hesitancy to act as “‘super-HR’ departments,” as phrased in a 2021 Pennsylvania judge’s decision. Furthermore, courts also have dismissed discrimination claims under Title VII where an employer has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, as the 5th Circuit determined in Green.
For example, the 6th Circuit held that the University of Toledo did not discriminate against an HR professional who reported a perceived unlawful promotion decision. Instead, the court said the university proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the firing, namely the plaintiff’s alleged failure to attend meetings, offer mentorships to assigned trainees and adequately complete projects.
And in 2019, the 9th Circuit found in favor of Walmart in a former employee’s age bias lawsuit, holding that the company showed it had fired the employee for violating company policy rather than because of his age.
Despite these outcomes, employer-side attorneys have expressed concern about the future of Title VII liability following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision, which lowered harm standards for plaintiffs pleading employment discrimination. The lower threshold could favor such plaintiffs in the future, one source previously told HR Dive.