Holmes v. Branch Banking and Trust Company, Civil Action No. 2014-1366

Background

Holmes was hired by BB&T in 2004 and promoted to Relationship Banker II by May 2006; she trained a younger male, David Arriola, who was paid more than Holmes.
BB&T required specific client identification (CIP) and signature cards to open accounts; employees were taught these procedures and warned that opening accounts without authorization could lead to termination.
In late 2007 a client complained that Holmes opened an account without consent; an internal investigation identified seven accounts lacking signature cards and linked those accounts to Holmes’ employee number in bank records.
Holmes denied wrongdoing at an investigatory meeting; BB&T’s Discipline Committee (her supervisor Patterson and higher managers) terminated her employment in January 2008 for violating the Code of Ethics by opening accounts without client consent.
Holmes sued in 2014 alleging (1) sex discrimination under Title VII for wrongful termination and unequal pay, and (2) age discrimination under the ADEA for lower compensation; BB&T moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment to BB&T on the termination claim and the ADEA pay claim, but denied summary judgment on Holmes’ Title VII wage-discrimination claim (unequal pay to male comparators).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BB&T’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for termination (opening accounts without consent) was pretext for sex discrimination	Holmes contends the investigatory record was unreliable/impossible (controls made unauthorized openings implausible) and supervisor Patterson’s abusive conduct shows bias	BB&T argues the investigation produced client statements and business records showing a pattern tied to Holmes’ employee number; Patterson reasonably believed the findings	Court: Summary judgment for BB&T on termination; the employer offered admissible evidence and its belief was reasonable, plaintiff failed to show pretext or that bias motivated the firing
Admissibility of client statements and internal bank records at summary judgment	Holmes argued client emails and internal records were hearsay and inadmissible	BB&T argued statements were offered to show employer’s belief; records fall under business-records exception or are offered to explain decisionmaking	Court: Admitted for purpose of showing employer’s honest belief; records can be business records or used to explain decisionmaking
Whether Patterson’s workplace misconduct/comments support an inference of sex-based animus affecting termination	Holmes points to profane language, disclosure of her compensation complaint, and insensitive comments about a menstrual-related absence as evidence of sex bias	BB&T contends comments were not gender-directed or connected to termination and thus are stray remarks	Court: Remarks were not sufficiently gender-linked or connected to the adverse action to establish discrimination; insufficient to create a triable issue
Whether Holmes established Title VII/ADEA wage-discrimination claims based on male comparators	Holmes identified younger male comparators (Arriola and an unidentified male banker) paid more while performing substantially equal work	BB&T argued salary decisions reflect experience/qualifications and Arriola’s pay was set before Holmes turned 40 (so ADEA inapplicable); it offered no comparator qualifications to justify pay gap	Court: ADEA claim dismissed (Holmes’ pay set before she was 40 and no evidence of age-based reason post-40); Title VII wage claim survives summary judgment because BB&T failed to articulate a nondiscriminatory justification for pay disparity

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard and genuine-dispute definition)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burdens)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (once employer offers nondiscriminatory reason, central inquiry is whether a jury could infer discrimination)
Vatel v. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 627 F.3d 1245 (direct evidence standard entitling plaintiff to jury trial)
Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180 (decisionmaker’s honest belief in proffered reason is controlling for pretext analysis)
Crockett v. Abraham, 284 F.3d 131 (third-party statements admissible to explain employer decisionmaking)
Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140 (business-records exception at summary judgment)
Anderson v. Zubieta, 180 F.3d 329 (framework for pay-disparity claims under Title VII)
Burley v. National Passenger R.R. Corp., 801 F.3d 290 (an employer’s reasonable investigatory steps defeat inference of mendacity)
Wheeler v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 812 F.3d 1109 (use of comparator evidence to rebut employer’s nondiscriminatory justification)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s-paw theory elements)