Belcher v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc.
4:10-cv-03475
| S.D. Tex. | Feb 8, 2013Background
- FEI hired Belcher as a Utility Worker in March 2008 at $16/hour on the Oak Grove Project.
- Belcher was promoted to Utility Foreman with a wage increase, gaining supervisory duties, and could opt out of some cleaning tasks.
- The Oak Grove Project was temporary and layoffs began early 2009, with Belcher the first Utility Foreman laid off.
- Belcher alleged sex discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation based on demeaning duties, training denial, misapplied discipline, inappropriate comments, graffiti, and safety-incident concerns.
- FEI conducted investigations into harassment (Rouse) and compliance hotline complaints, but Belcher reported dissatisfaction and ultimately left no direct complaint at times.
- The district court granted FEI summary judgment, finding no prima facie case and no pretext or hostile environment/wrongful retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie sex discrimination | Belcher alleges layoff was due to sex-based discrimination. | FEI had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (experience, discipline) and differences in comparators; layoff was RIF-driven. | Granted summary judgment; no prima facie case proved due to non-similarly situated comparators. |
| Adverse employment action for discrimination | Reprimands, demeaning tasks, lack of training, and supervisory undermining are adverse actions. | Most actions are not ultimate employment actions; layoff only action, and others are not actionable. | Only layoff qualifies as adverse; other actions not actionable. |
| Hostile environment based on sex | Offensive graffiti, demeaning comments, and segregation of women created a hostile environment. | Conduct did not reach severe or pervasive level; actions were not clearly due to sex; remedial actions were taken. | No hostile environment; conduct not severe or pervasive enough and remedial actions were prompt. |
| Retaliation | Layoff linked to protected activities and harassment complaints. | No evidence managers knew of protected activity; layoff justified by temporary project and experience gaps. | No causal link shown; retaliation claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (plaintiff must prove pretext after employer offers legitimate reason)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext may be shown by evidence that employer's reasons are unworthy of credence)
- Nasti v. CIBA Specialty Chem. Corp., 492 F.3d 589 (5th Cir. 2007) (one independent legitimate reason can sustain nondiscriminatory termination)
- Hart v. Life Care Ctr. of Plano, 243 Fed. Appx. 816 (5th Cir. 2007) (nonadverse handling of tasks supports non-adverse-action analysis)