Johnson v. Pride Industries, 7 F.4th 392

PRIDE Industries employed Michael Johnson (Black) at Fort Bliss and promoted him to carpenter; coworkers included Juan Palomares (Hispanic), who frequently interacted with Johnson.
Johnson alleges repeated race-based harassment by Palomares including use of the Spanish slur “mayate” (understood as the n-word), other epithets, nicknames (“mijo,” “manos”), less-favorable work assignments, and concealment of his promotion paperwork.
Johnson complained multiple times to supervisors and HR; PRIDE investigated but (according to Johnson) did not stop the harassment; he took medical leave and later resigned, citing stress and anxiety.
Johnson filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue letter, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for hostile work environment, failure to promote, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to PRIDE on all claims.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on failure-to-promote, constructive-discharge, and retaliation claims but reversed and remanded as to the hostile work environment claim, finding triable issues of fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hostile work environment	Johnson: repeated racial slurs, nicknames, worse assignments, hidden promotion paperwork, and psychological harm show severe/pervasive harassment and PRIDE knew but failed to act	PRIDE: incidents isolated; not severe or pervasive; PRIDE investigated and addressed complaints	Reversed as to this claim — genuine issues of fact on severity/pervasiveness and employer knowledge/inaction; remanded for trial
Failure to promote	Johnson: he sought and was qualified for supervisory promotion but was passed over	PRIDE: Johnson did not show he met the position’s qualifications; selected candidate had superior experience	Affirmed for PRIDE — plaintiff failed to establish prima facie qualifications element
Constructive discharge	Johnson: working conditions and PRIDE’s failure to remedy harassment made continued employment intolerable, causing resignation	PRIDE: no demotion/reduction; long gap between complaints and resignation; harasser was transferred away; not intolerable	Affirmed for PRIDE — insufficient evidence that conditions were so intolerable a reasonable employee would resign
Retaliation	Johnson: complaints and EEOC charge led to adverse actions (constructive discharge)	PRIDE: no actionable adverse employment action or causal link	Affirmed for PRIDE — plaintiff failed to prove an adverse action (constructive discharge) and thus failed prima facie case

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile-work-environment standard: severe or pervasive)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (objective perspective of reasonable person in plaintiff’s position)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (repeated conduct generally required; single incidents may be insufficient)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (supervisor epithets and employer liability principles)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (U.S. 2013) (definition of "supervisor" for harassment liability)
WC&M Enters., Inc. v. EEOC, 496 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2007) (hostile-environment analysis; severity vs. pervasiveness tradeoff)
Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) (elements of hostile work environment claim)
Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub. Sch. Dist., 549 F.3d 985 (5th Cir. 2008) (constructive discharge requires intolerable working conditions)
E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) (employer’s inadequate investigation can be insufficient remedial action)
Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1989) (employer must take prompt, appropriate remedial action)