Williams v. Raytheon Co.
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17549, 220 F.3d 16, 80 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,580 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To defeat a motion for summary judgment in a discrimination case, an employee must produce sufficient evidence to show that the employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment action is a pretext for discrimination. Stray remarks by a supervisor reflecting a potential bias, without substantial evidence showing the employer's proffered reason is false, are insufficient to prove the action was motivated by discriminatory animus.
Facts:
- Ralph Williams, a 51-year-old male, was employed by Raytheon as Director of Internal Communications.
- In 1993, Elizabeth Allen became Williams' supervisor and expressed her intent to change Raytheon's culture, which she described as being run by 'old, white men,' and stated she would favor hiring women and younger people.
- Allen and Williams developed an acrimonious working relationship, which included an incident where Allen allegedly became furious with Williams after he provided testimony to a government investigator.
- On June 8, 1995, Allen assigned Williams several tasks, and Williams responded with a four-page memorandum which Allen considered hostile and sarcastic.
- Following the memorandum, Williams and Allen had a confrontational meeting where she told him she wanted him to leave the company, and he stated he would report her to the Human Resources Department (HR).
- Williams subsequently filed an internal complaint against Allen with Raytheon's HR department.
- On July 11, 1995, Allen and two HR members informed Williams that he was being permanently suspended for insubordination, stating he had been 'insubordinate by memo.'
- Williams was eventually replaced by a 48-year-old white man.
Procedural Posture:
- Ralph Williams filed a charge of discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD).
- Williams then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against Raytheon Company, alleging gender and age discrimination under federal and state law, as well as retaliation.
- The U.S. District Court, as the court of first instance, granted summary judgment in favor of Raytheon on all claims.
- Williams, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with Raytheon as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee establish a genuine issue of material fact that an employer's proffered reason for termination, insubordination, is a pretext for gender discrimination under Title VII, where the primary evidence of discriminatory animus consists of the supervisor's stray remarks and there is no substantial evidence refuting the charge of insubordination?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwarzer, Senior District Judge
No. An employee does not establish a genuine issue of material fact that an employer's reason for termination was a pretext for gender discrimination under these circumstances. To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must do more than establish a prima facie case; they must also present sufficient evidence to show the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason is false and a pretext for discrimination. Here, Raytheon asserted it terminated Williams for insubordination, a reason supported by the undisputed acrimonious relationship and Williams' confrontational memorandum. Williams failed to make a 'substantial showing' that this reason was false. Allen's 'stray remarks' about 'old, white men,' standing alone, are insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to infer that Raytheon's actual motive was discriminatory. Furthermore, Williams' age discrimination claim fails because the three-year age difference between him and his replacement is legally insignificant.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant burden on plaintiffs to prove pretext in employment discrimination claims at the summary judgment stage. It establishes that stray remarks indicative of a discriminatory attitude are not, by themselves, sufficient to defeat summary judgment when the employer has articulated a plausible, non-discriminatory reason for its action and the employee cannot produce substantial evidence to show that reason is false. The ruling clarifies the high evidentiary bar for pretext, requiring plaintiffs to directly challenge the credibility of the employer's justification. Additionally, it joins other circuits in holding that a minor age difference between an employee and their replacement is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.
