Beverly Roberts v. Lubrizol Corporation
582 F. App'x 455
5th Cir.2014Background
- Roberts worked as an operator at Lubrizol from 2004 to 2012 and injured her hand in May 2012, taking FMLA leave
- Upon return on restricted duty, Roberts alleged hostile conduct by male coworkers and sought shift/operator changes
- Roberts reported concerns to her supervisor in July 2012; Human Resources advised additional time off
- In September 2012, Roberts allegedly faced three “near miss” safety incidents leading to her termination on October 9, 2012
- Lubrizol moved for summary judgment claiming no valid comparator for sex discrimination and no pretext for retaliation; district court granted summary judgment
- Roberts appealed, raising a sexual harassment claim for the first time in response to summary judgment and asserting retaliation/ discrimination
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a valid comparator for sex discrimination? | Roberts identifies male operators with allegedly similar conduct | No suitable comparator; records show non-identical circumstances | No genuine comparator; discrimination claim fails |
| Did Roberts prove retaliation with pretext? | Protected activity and disparate treatment show retaliation | Justification for termination (three safety violations) is non-retaliatory | Pretext not shown; judgment for Lubrizol affirmed |
| Was sexual harassment properly raised and considered? | Harassment claim exists in complaint | Claim not raised in complaint; inappropriate for consideration | Not properly before the district court; affirmed summary judgment on other claims |
| What standard governs pretext and causation? | Temporal proximity may show causation | Temporal proximity alone does not prove pretext | Pretext not established under applicable standards |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (requires a suitable comparator to prove similarly situated treatment)
- Turner v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 675 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 2012) (comparator analysis in discrimination cases requires comparators be very similar)
- Feist v. La. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Att’y Gen., 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation pretext)
- Strong v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., L.L.C., 482 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 2007) (relevance of temporal proximity in causation analysis)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (but-for causation applied to retaliation)
- Bouvier v. Northrup Grumman Ship Sys., Inc., 350 F. App’x 917 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished; legitimate non-retaliatory justification for safety violations)
- Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987 (5th Cir. 2005) (analysis of discrimination/§1981 under Title VII framework)
- Hall v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 252 F. App’x 650 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished; framework for Title VII analyses)