Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rite Way Service, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6473
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mekeva Tennort, a general cleaner employed by Rite Way at Biloxi Junior High, witnessed two sexually fraught interactions by interim supervisor Willie Harris in August 2011.
- Co-worker Linda Quarles complained of Harris’s sexual harassment and identified Tennort as an eyewitness; Rite Way’s HR (Alex McCullom) solicited Tennort’s statement on August 18, 2011.
- During the interview, McCullom discouraged reporting with a comment implying reprisals; Tennort nonetheless wrote and submitted a report corroborating Quarles.
- Within about five weeks after the report, under a new supervisor (Harris’s brother‑in‑law), Tennort received oral and written warnings for performance issues and was terminated on September 26, 2011.
- The EEOC sued for retaliation under Title VII on Tennort’s behalf, arguing the performance criticisms were pretextual and her termination retaliatory; the district court granted summary judgment for Rite Way, finding Tennort lacked a reasonable belief that Harris’s conduct violated Title VII.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "reasonable belief" standard applies to a third‑party witness who gives a solicited statement during an internal investigation | Tennort (EEOC) argued Crawford permits protection for reactive complaints and that the reasonable‑belief requirement should not be relaxed for solicited, third‑party statements | Rite Way argued the opposition clause requires that the employee reasonably believe the conduct violated Title VII; district court applied that standard and found no reasonable belief here | The court held the established "reasonable belief" standard applies to both proactive and reactive opposition, including third‑party witnesses. |
| Whether Tennort reasonably believed Harris’s conduct violated Title VII (sufficiency of protected activity) | Tennort argued the supervisory context, repeated off‑color conduct, company anti‑harassment pamphlet, and HR’s discouraging remarks could lead a reasonable person to believe a Title VII violation occurred | Rite Way relied on precedent holding isolated remarks insufficient and argued Harris’s comments were not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a Title VII violation | The court found a genuine fact issue: given context (supervisory role, repeated conduct, rehiring pamphlet, HR discouragement), a jury could conclude Tennort reasonably believed Title VII was violated. |
| Whether Rite Way had nonretaliatory justification or whether termination was pretextual (causation) | EEOC argued temporal proximity, spotless prior record, and suspicious comments by management support inference of retaliation and that performance write‑ups were pretextual | Rite Way pointed to customer complaints and documented performance issues as an uncontroverted legitimate reason for termination | The court held there is competing evidence sufficient to create a fact issue for the jury on pretext/causation and reversed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. McLemore’s Wholesale & Retail Stores, 654 F.2d 1130 (5th Cir. 1981) (adopts objective "reasonable belief" standard for opposition clause)
- Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tenn., 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (solicited employee complaints can constitute "opposition")
- Breeden v. Clark County School District, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (isolated, innocuous remarks cannot support reasonable belief of Title VII violation)
- Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 1996) (offensive joke plus ensuing adverse treatment can create jury question on reasonable belief and retaliation)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (strength of prima facie case and temporal proximity relevant to pretext analysis)
- Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2013) (district court noted tension between Payne and Section 704(a) text but Payne remains good law)
- Byers v. Dallas Morning News, 209 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2000) (information known to complaining employee may inform reasonableness of belief)