Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc.
95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 906, 407 F.3d 332, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5951 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a Title VII employment discrimination case waives the right to challenge the district court's formulation of the prima facie case on appeal if they failed to raise that specific legal objection during the lower court proceedings. To prove constructive discharge, an employee must show that working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign, a standard higher than that for a hostile work environment claim.
Facts:
- Majesco Software, Inc. is a U.S. subsidiary of Mastek Ltd., an Indian information technology company.
- Ivor Keelan, a U.K. citizen, and David Sullivan, a U.S. citizen, were hired as sales employees for Majesco in 2000 and 2001, respectively.
- Both Keelan and Sullivan had poor sales records; Sullivan generated no sales, and Keelan generated no sales after April 2001.
- They alleged their performance was hindered by Majesco's preference for staffing projects with Indian technicians, which they claimed made it difficult to complete sales initiated by non-Indians.
- Company executives, who were Indian nationals, allegedly made statements such as foreseeing a "totally Indian company," that "Americans need too much handholding," and that "Americans have never worked out."
- Facing financial losses, Majesco implemented an across-the-board pay cut and altered its commission structure for all salespeople in July 2001.
- Sullivan signed an employment agreement with another company in June 2001 and resigned from Majesco in July 2001.
- Majesco terminated Keelan's employment in November 2001 for nonproduction.
Procedural Posture:
- Ivor Keelan and David Sullivan filed charges of national origin discrimination against Majesco with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- They subsequently filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging discrimination, wrongful termination for Keelan, and constructive discharge for Sullivan.
- Majesco filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Majesco, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims.
- The district court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that similarly situated Indian employees were treated better and that Sullivan did not raise a genuine issue of fact regarding constructive discharge.
- Keelan and Sullivan (Appellants) appealed the district court's 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:
Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, does an employee establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination with evidence of a discriminatory environment and executive comments, but without providing specific evidence that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably?
Opinions:
Majority - DeMoss, Circuit Judge
No, an employee does not establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination under these circumstances when the accepted legal standard requires showing that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably. The court first held that the Appellants waived their argument against the district court's specific formulation of the prima facie case because they never objected to it below. For Sullivan's claim, the court found he failed to prove constructive discharge, as the challenged working conditions (pay cuts, office policies) were applied neutrally to all employees, and his resignation coincided with accepting a higher-paying job, not with intolerable conditions. For Keelan's claim, he failed to meet his prima facie burden because he did not identify any similarly situated Indian salesperson who was treated more favorably; to the contrary, the record showed two Indian salespeople were also fired for nonproduction. The statistical evidence and executive comments were insufficient to show preferential treatment and were dismissed as stray remarks not connected to the termination decision.
Analysis:
This case emphasizes the critical procedural rule of waiver, illustrating that a litigant's failure to object to a specific legal standard at the trial level will preclude appellate review of that standard. The decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for proving both constructive discharge and pretext in Title VII cases. It demonstrates that generalized allegations of a discriminatory atmosphere or stray remarks by executives are insufficient to overcome a well-documented, legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination, such as poor performance, especially when employees from the allegedly favored group were subject to the same adverse action.
