Eula Mack v. John L. Wortham & Son, L.P., 541 F. App'x 348

Mack was hired in Nov 2005 and moved between departments (Commercial Accounts, Risk Management, then Marine) through 2009.
Her 2006 departure from Risk Management is disputed: Mack alleges coercion to quit; Wortham says lack of computer skills and appropriate transfer caused relocation.
Mack faced repeated tardiness and insubordination, was placed on probation in 2008, and ultimately terminated in Feb 2009 amid attendance and policy violations.
Mack alleged racial, sex, and age discrimination, plus a culture claim, and claimed a 2005 contract for annual reviews; she was terminated in Marine Department in 2009.
District court granted summary judgment for Wortham on all claims in 2012, finding exhausted/disposed claims and legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination; contract claim deemed invalid.
Mack filed EEOC charge in Mar 2009; rights-to-sue letter issued Aug 2010; complaint filed Dec 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of sex and culture claims	Mack argues wider EEOC scope includes sex/culture.	Wortham contends sex/culture claims not exhausted under EEOC scope.	Sex and culture claims barred for lack of exhaustion.
Continuing violations and hostile environment applicability	Continuing violations/hostile environment may revive pre-2008 acts.	No continuing violations or hostile environment established.	Neither doctrine applies; time-barred pre-May 28, 2008 acts cannot be revived.
Prima facie case and pretext (Title VII termination claim)	Mack can show prima facie case and pretext; others were similarly situated.	Wortham's reasons (tardiness, insubordination, policy violations) are legitimate and not pretextual.	No genuine dispute; Wortham's reasons are legitimate and nondiscriminatory; no pretext shown.
ADEA claim viability	Age discrimination led to termination; replacement by younger employee.	No replacement by younger worker; no causation shown.	No ADEA prima facie showing; termination not shown to be age-based.
Breach of contract claim viability	December 2005 email created a contract for annual performance reviews.	Email lacks essential contract elements and consideration; no valid contract.	No valid contract; breach claim fails.

Berry v. Bd. of Supervisors of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1983) (three-factor test for continuing violations: subject matter, frequency, permanence)
Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 1998) (continuous racial harassment can form a hostile environment when pattern persists)
Frank v. Xerox Corp., 347 F.3d 130 (5th Cir. 2003) (continuing violations doctrine limits when acts are separate and varied)
Del. State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980) (persistent effects do not make past discrimination actionable after 300 days)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile environment requires cumulative discrimination rather than isolated acts)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims; pretext analysis)
Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2001) (prima facie case and evidence of disparate treatment frameworks)
Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (liberal scope of EEOC investigation for exhaustion analysis)
Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970) (exhaustion scope extends to investigation reasonably expected to grow from charge)
Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2002) (EEOC charge scope and time-bar considerations)