Crowe v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8434
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Crowe, African-American, worked as an ADT technician from July 1997 to July 27, 2007.
- December 1, 2006: Nguyen alleged Crowe harassed her; manager corroborated and HR determined the complaint well-founded.
- Early January 2007: Easterling received another complaint about Crowe’s hat and dress-code; disciplinary actions followed.
- January 30, 2007: final written warning issued; warned of termination for further incidents; Crowe did not sign.
- May 2007 onward: additional complaints of harassment and insubordination; Laurila investigated and recommended termination.
- July 27, 2007: Stanfield approved and Crowe terminated; Crowe sued for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and §1981; district court granted summary judgment for ADT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretext for discrimination | Crowe argues pretext via Garrett-like evidence and inconsistent criteria. | ADT contends extensive harassment history justifies termination; no pretext. | No pretext; termination justified by long history of misconduct. |
| Pretext for retaliation | Post-protected-activity complaints triggered termination, implying pretext. | Termination based on entire personnel history, not timing. | No pretext; timing not shown as sole basis and history supports termination. |
| Cat's paw liability applicability | Laurila's recommendation reflected discriminatory animus influencing the decision. | Memorandum did not reveal racial hostility and did not causally inflame the decision. | Laurila's report does not exhibit racial hostility; no Staub-style liability found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (employer liable for biased acts by those influencing an adverse action (cat's paw))
- Garrett v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 305 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2002) (subjective evaluations and pretext in termination decisions)
- Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 493 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (pretext shown by weaknesses, inconsistencies, or differential treatment)
- Sorbo v. United Parcel Serv., 432 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2005) (evidence of employer belief in misconduct relevant to summary judgment)
- Jones v. Robinson Prop. Group, LP, 427 F.3d 987 (5th Cir. 2005) (supplemental authority on discrimination and supervisor actions)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination and retaliation)