Bobby Whitlock was terminated by his Monroe employer, Lazer Spot, Inc. after it claimed he left the vicinity of a loading dock while the light remained red. Next, Whitlock filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Two years later, Whitlock, who is African American, filed a claim against Lazer Spot, Inc., alleging both a hostile work environment and racial discrimination. Lazer Spot, Inc. then filed to dismiss Whitlock’s motion, arguing that his challenges did not state a claim. Next, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted Lazer Spot, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and found Whitlock did not state a claim for either his discriminatory discharge allegation or his hostile work environment complaint. This appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal follows.
To be successful with a motion to dismiss claim, the Court of Appeal found, under law, that a complaint has to have adequate factual matter to bring a claim of relief that is facially plausible, including when a plaintiff pleads facts that permits the court to reasonably infer the defendant was liable for the alleged misconduct. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly.
Whitlock first contended that Lazer Spot, Inc.’s reason for terminating his employment was not true and was a cover for racial discrimination. In his complaint, Whitlock also stated that employees who were white were not disciplined for the same infractions and that discrimination in the workplace created a hostile environment.
The Court of Appeal found Whitlock’s allegations did not have sufficient content to draw an interference that his previous employer was responsible for terminating him due to his race. For instance, the Court of Appeals found Whitlock’s complaint failed to describe the white employees’ violations at work in detail and did not have facial plausibility in regard to his claim of discriminatory discharge. As such, the Court of Appeal held the District Court was correct when it granted the motion to dismiss.
Additionally, to constitute a hostile work environment, the Court of Appeal found the unlawful acts must have happened over several days or years and be entirely contradictory to discrete acts. As such, one harassing act cannot be, by itself, actionable. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan.
In Whitlock’s complaint, he alleged he was penalized for certain actions that employees who were white were not disciplined for. For example, Whitlock stated that an employee who was white was permitted to ride in a truck, not doing his specific work duties, while at the same time being credited for the job done by African American employees. The Court of Appeal found that Whitlock’s complaint failed to show that he was subjected to ongoing or repeated harassment due to his race. The Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s judgment and held Whitlock’s complaint did not state a claim in regard to a hostile work environment.
This case serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of understanding the legal requirements and presenting essential evidence in workplace litigation involving racial discrimination. Individuals must carefully construct their complaints to successfully pursue claims in such cases, providing detailed factual content that establishes a plausible inference of racial discrimination or a hostile work environment. By acknowledging the role of crucial evidence and seeking the assistance of experienced attorneys well-versed in these matters, victims of racial discrimination can effectively navigate the legal system and seek justice for the injustices they have endured.
Additional Sources: BOBBY D. WHITLOCK v. LAZER SPOT, INCORPORATED
Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog Writer: Samantha Calhoun
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Unlawful Firing Due to Racial Discrimination: Blue Cliff College Overcomes Claim of Racial Discrimination Louisiana Employment Discrimination Case Fails Due to Summary Judgment