Higgins v. Lufkin Industries, Inc., 633 F. App'x 229

Background

Higgins, a Black female employee at Lufkin Industries (Jun 2011–Jun 2012), alleges coworker Lance Redd (white male) made racially and sexually offensive remarks in Jan and Mar 2012 and propositioned her.
Redd told Higgins he had "never been with" a Black woman, called her a "nigger bitch" and "whore," and in March said he would "write her up" unless she "gave him some." Higgins refused.
Redd later became a supervisor at a loading dock; Higgins volunteered for a loading-dock shift on Apr 5, 2012, and was sent home for the rest of the day (with pay) after a supervisor dispute.
On June 14, 2012, Safety Supervisor Quick (after Redd relayed a rumor) asked Higgins to submit to a reasonable-suspicion drug test; Higgins initially refused because she suspected Redd’s involvement. She was told to test the next morning, fell asleep in the lobby, and was suspended. On June 20 she admitted to being under prescribed Vicodin the night of June 14 and was fired.
Higgins sued under Title VII for quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims; the Fifth Circuit AFFIRMED.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Quid pro quo — was Redd a supervisor and did his advances cause a tangible employment action?	Redd’s later promotion and his prior advances show quid pro quo causation; district court erred by focusing on supervisory status at time of advances.	Redd lacked authority to take the tangible employment action that led to firing; Duford (HR) made the termination decision.	Affirmed — Higgins failed to show causation; no evidence Redd influenced the decisionmaker (cat’s paw inapplicable).
Retaliation — was termination pretext for retaliation after Higgins complained?	Higgins argues she complained about Redd and was later fired; the drug-test reason was pretext because management initially said she could test the next morning.	Lufkin relied on its policy: refusal to submit to immediate reasonable-suspicion test permits termination; no evidence of inconsistent application or other employees treated differently.	Affirmed — plaintiff offered no substantial evidence of pretext or inconsistent enforcement.
Hostile work environment — were incidents severe or pervasive enough to affect terms/conditions?	Two incidents (Jan and Mar 2012), including racial epithets and quid pro quo comment, created a hostile environment.	Conduct was isolated and not sufficiently severe or pervasive under Title VII standards.	Affirmed — two isolated incidents over one year not severe or pervasive to alter employment terms.
Cat’s paw application — can Redd’s actions be imputed to employer?	Higgins urges cat’s paw: Redd induced the adverse action through influence on decisionmaker.	No evidence Redd influenced HR’s termination decision; Redd only caused Quick to request the drug test.	Affirmed — no evidence of Redd’s influence on the ultimate decisionmaker; cat’s paw fails.

Key Cases Cited

Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (defines "tangible employment action" and employer liability framework)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (defines "supervisor" for vicarious Title VII liability)
Zamora v. City of Houston, 798 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2015) (explains cat’s paw theory and required proof of influence on decisionmaker)
La Day v. Catalyst Tech., 302 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2002) (elements for quid pro quo claim causation requirement)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (limitations on isolated incidents for hostile work environment claims)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (intensity/severity standard for hostile-work-environment claims)
Shepherd v. Comptroller, 168 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 1999) (example evaluating frequency/severity of harassment incidents)