Agassounon v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc.
688 F. App'x 507
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Yétongbé Agassounon, a Black man born in Benin, worked as a technical support specialist for Jeppesen Sanderson from 2008–2013 and was laid off in an August 2013 RIF.
- During 2012–2013 Plaintiff alleges several coworkers made racist or derogatory remarks (e.g., “monkey,” “go back to the jungle,” comments about accent and odor); he reported some comments and filed an EEOC charge in May 2013.
- Plaintiff claims he overheard an HR representative tell his supervisor (while Plaintiff was in a room) to “try to create more incidents on him so we can get away from him.”
- For the RIF, employees were scored 1–4 in five categories; Plaintiff received a score of 1 in each category and was terminated along with another lowest-ranked employee (a white woman); several white employees were retained.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendant on Title VII and CADA discrimination and retaliation claims; plaintiff appealed and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to promote | Agassounon was qualified and was denied promotion due to race/national origin | No evidence of the specific position, qualifications, or that Agassounon applied | Summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case |
| Hostile work environment | Repeated racial remarks and insults created a hostile workplace | Incidents were isolated and not sufficiently severe or pervasive | Summary judgment for defendant; comments not a steady barrage altering conditions |
| RIF discrimination | Employer and supervisor manipulated evaluations (collusion) to target him in RIF | RIF used neutral scoring criteria; termination based on lowest scores; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff failed to show pretext or link bias to ratings |
| Retaliation | He was terminated in retaliation for reporting coworkers and filing EEOC charge | Termination resulted from legitimate RIF process and low performance scores | Summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff did not prove retaliatory motive or pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir.) (summary judgment standard and prima facie failure-to-promote framework)
- Lounds v. Lincare, Inc., 812 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.) (hostile-work-environment standards; material/genuine fact inquiry)
- Johnson v. Weld County, 594 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir.) (CADA claims analyzed under same standards as Title VII)
- Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n v. Big O Tires, Inc., 940 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1997) (state-law discrimination standard alignment with Title VII)
- Pippin v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir.) (prima facie RIF discrimination and methods to show pretext)
- Conroy v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir.) (pretext may be shown in varied ways in employment cases)
- Hansen v. SkyWest Airlines, 844 F.3d 914 (10th Cir.) (retaliation standards and McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting)