Etienne v. Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza, LLC
778 F.3d 473 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Discriminatory comments made by a decision-maker that are related to an employee's protected characteristic and the challenged employment decision constitute direct evidence of discrimination, even if the precise timing is unknown, so long as the comments were part of a routine or ongoing practice.
Facts:
- Esma Etienne, a dark-skinned Black woman, was a waitress and bartender at Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza.
- Bernard Terradot, the general manager of Spanish Lake, had the authority to make promotion decisions.
- A managerial position became available, and Etienne sought the promotion.
- On several occasions, Terradot told another manager, Jeannene Johnson, that he 'thought Esma Etienne was too black to do various tasks at the casino.'
- Terradot also had a practice of allocating responsibilities to employees based on skin color and would not allow 'a dark skinned black person [to] handle any money.'
- Etienne was not promoted to the managerial position.
Procedural Posture:
- Esma Etienne filed a Title VII suit against Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza in federal district court, alleging discriminatory failure to promote.
- The district court granted Spanish Lake's motion for summary judgment, holding that Etienne had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
- Etienne (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a manager's repeated statements that an employee was 'too black to do various tasks' and his policy of not letting 'a dark skinned black person handle any money' constitute direct evidence of race and color discrimination under Title VII sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - E. Grady Jolly
Yes. A manager's statements that an employee was 'too black' for certain job tasks, made on multiple occasions, constitutes direct evidence of discrimination. The court reasoned that Terradot's comments, as described in Johnson's affidavit, required no inference or presumption to conclude that race and color were a basis in employment decisions regarding Etienne. The court applied its four-factor test for direct evidence, finding the comments were: (1) related to Etienne's protected characteristic (race/color), (3) made by the decision-maker with hiring authority (Terradot), and (4) related to the challenged employment decision, as managing involves tasks like handling money. Although the timing (factor 2) was not specified, the affidavit's claim that the remarks were made 'on several occasions' and reflected a 'routine' practice was sufficient at the summary judgment stage to satisfy the proximity-in-time factor. Because Etienne presented direct evidence, the burden shifted to Spanish Lake to prove it would have made the same decision absent the discrimination, a burden it failed to meet, thus creating a genuine issue for trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'stray remarks' doctrine by establishing that the routine or repeated nature of discriminatory comments by a decision-maker can satisfy the proximity-in-time requirement, even without a specific date. It reinforces the principle that unambiguous statements of bias directly linked to job qualifications constitute direct evidence, shifting the burden of proof to the employer at the summary judgment stage. This makes it more difficult for employers to dismiss discrimination cases before trial when there is evidence of a manager's persistent, overt bias.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Etienne v. Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza, LLC (2015)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"