Frazier v. Safelite Group, Inc.
3:17-cv-01366
M.D. Fla.Jun 5, 2019Background
- Safelite hired Jameel Frazier (Black) as a mobile windshield technician in April 2016; Safelite’s installation policies required use of an activator ("Aktivator") and the company had a zero-tolerance rule for failure to use activator.
- On Oct. 4, 2016, a customer returned a vehicle for a warranty repair; a different technician discovered Aktivator had not been used on the original installation performed by Frazier. Frazier admitted he unintentionally failed to use Aktivator and apologized.
- Safelite investigated, convened a review committee, and terminated Frazier on Nov. 18, 2016 pursuant to the zero-tolerance policy.
- Frazier filed an EEOC/FCHR charge and sued under the Florida Civil Rights Act alleging race and color discrimination (he later stipulated color claim duplicates race claim).
- At summary judgment the central dispute was whether Frazier identified valid similarly situated comparators or otherwise produced circumstantial ("convincing mosaic") evidence of discriminatory intent; the court held he did not and granted defendant summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frazier established the fourth McDonnell Douglas element (similarly situated comparator) | Identified three white technicians (Pruett, O’Quinn, Salts) who allegedly committed comparable infractions but were not fired | The proffered comparators engaged in materially different conduct, and decisionmakers lacked knowledge of alleged prior misconduct (so not valid comparators) | Court: Comparators not similarly situated in all material respects; no prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas; summary judgment for Safelite |
| Whether circumstantial "convincing mosaic" evidence supports an inference of discrimination | Points to inconsistent discipline, alleged uneven enforcement of zero-tolerance, positive performance, timing of other firings, and a stray racial remark | Safelite shows uniform enforcement for failure to activate, discretion to skip progressive steps, and that similarly situated employees of various races were terminated | Court: Even under convincing-mosaic framework evidence is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of intentional discrimination |
| Admissibility/relevance of alleged stray racial remark | Remark evidence contributes to pattern of discrimination | Remark was isolated, not made by a decisionmaker, not reported, and temporally unrelated to termination | Court: Single, isolated stray remark too weak to show pretext or discriminatory intent |
| Remedy / disposition of claims | N/A (plaintiff sought relief) | Sought dismissal of claims | Court: Dismissed color claim as duplicative; granted summary judgment to Safelite on race claim and entered judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. en banc) (clarifies comparator-similarity test for disparate-treatment claims)
- Smith v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (discusses "convincing mosaic" theory of circumstantial evidence)
- Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (Supreme Court) (addresses the degree of similarity required for comparators)
- Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir. 2012) (example where convincing-mosaic supported inference of discrimination)