Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19261

Barber, an African American, sued C1 Truck Driver Training and affiliates alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and ACRA, after being denied a promotion and later terminated.
The district court granted summary judgment to C1 on all claims, finding no direct evidence and applying McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination and retaliation.
Barber had applied for the North Little Rock site director position in 2007; Simpson was selected over Barber after interview and evaluation of qualifications and business suitability.
Memos and interviews cited reasons: Simpson’s demonstrated administrative ability, government connections, and Barber’s abrasive style; concerns about Barber’s hours and leadership; and a belief Barber would sue if not promoted.
Barber filed an EEOC charge after the promotion decision; Simpson became director in December 2007; Barber received a final written warning for insubordination in January 2008 and was ultimately terminated March 10, 2008 for insubordination and related conduct.
Barber asserted additional post-promotion retaliation and discriminatory actions, which the district court found encompassed by his termination claim; the Eighth Circuit affirmatively reviewed summary judgment de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Barber denied promotion due to race?	Barber asserts pretext given qualifications and alleged shifting explanations.	C1 relied on legitimate business reasons and assessments of candidates' fit.	No genuine pretext; race not shown.
Did C1's conduct in promotion constitute retaliation for protected activity?	Barber claimed retaliation tied to EEOC activity and discussions during interview.	Promotion decision not retaliatory; evidence insufficient for causation.	No material basis to find retaliation.
Was Bar ber’s termination discriminatory or retaliatory?	Termination was discriminatory and pretextual, tied to race and protected activity.	Termination due to insubordination and policy violations; legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.	Termination upheld as legitimate, nondiscriminatory.
Do any 'other instances' or post-promotion treatment create a triable pretext on termination?	Isolated incidents show discriminatory animus and pretext.	Other incidents do not show comparable misconduct or discriminatory motive; no pretext shown.	No triable issue; termination sustained.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Wierman v. Casey's General Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (pretext framework and evidence standard for retaliation/discrimination)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: must be genuine issue of material fact)
Montes v. Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies, 540 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2008) (employer's reasonable business judgment allowed in absence of discrimination)
Floyd v. Mo. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 188 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 1999) (qualifications and comparative consideration in discrimination context)
Trans States Airlines, Inc., 462 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2006) (contrast between consistent explanations and pretext evidence)
Loeb v. Best Buy Co., 537 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2008) (false/shifting explanations can support pretext finding)
Haas v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 409 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2005) (employer discretion in termination decisions)
Sprenger v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 253 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity evidence in retaliation analyses)
Davis v. Fleming Cos., 55 F.3d 1369 (8th Cir. 1995) (evidence of performance decline may be pretextual if relied upon)