Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Texar Line Clearance, Inc., 4:21-cv-04061

Texar Line Clearance, owned by John and Fallon Scoggins, performs right-of-way tree/vegetation removal across Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma using specialized equipment and lengthy on-the-job training for operators.
Hiring was largely driven by regional foremen recommendations; Scoggins purportedly deferred to foremen on position and starting pay within preset ranges.
Between 2019–2020 Texar hired multiple African American employees (claimants) into lower‑paid chip‑hand/laborer roles and hired numerous Hispanic workers (particularly in Oklahoma) into higher‑paid operator/climber roles or paid higher starting wages.
EEOC sued under Title VII alleging Texar steered Hispanic applicants into higher‑paying skilled operator positions and paid Hispanic hires higher starting wages than similarly situated African American applicants.
Texar moved for summary judgment; the court found the EEOC failed to show similarly situated comparators or pretext and granted summary judgment for Texar, dismissing the EEOC’s claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate treatment — position steering	EEOC: Texar steered less‑qualified Hispanic applicants into higher‑paying operator/climber positions while placing similarly qualified African Americans into laborer roles	Texar: Placement based on actual experience and regional needs; foremen had personal knowledge of Hispanic applicants’ experience	Court: EEOC failed to show claimants had similarly situated Hispanic comparators; no prima facie showing and no pretext shown — summary judgment for Texar
Disparate treatment — starting wages	EEOC: African American claimants received lower starting wages than Hispanic hires for equal work	Texar: Starting pay based on experience and geography (Oklahoma jobs paid more due to travel/overnight requirements)	Court: Two claimants received equal top starting pay; remaining comparators were in different regions and not similarly situated; EEOC failed to show pretext — summary judgment for Texar

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden‑shifting framework for proving disparate treatment)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (discusses direct evidence vs. McDonnell Douglas in discrimination and summary judgment context)
Smith v. URS Corp., 803 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2015) (sets out prima facie elements and strict similarly‑situated comparator requirement for pay/placement claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: materiality and genuine dispute analysis)
Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 684 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2012) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to wage discrimination claims)
Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2006) (defines direct evidence of discrimination)