Nicole Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et
798 F.3d 222
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Burton was a Manpower temporary employee assigned to Freescale from 2009–2011; she reported workplace chemical exposure and filed a workers’ compensation claim in mid‑June 2011.
- Freescale manager Bruce Akroyd decided to terminate Burton in late June; the actual termination occurred in late July after Freescale and Manpower compiled retrospective documentation.
- Freescale claimed Burton was fired for poor performance (including a broken wafer, prior reviews, and alleged unauthorized Internet use), but many cited incidents were documented only after the termination decision.
- Manpower carried out the termination and participated in a pre‑termination “communication plan”; Manpower initially recommended against termination because of weak documentation and proximity to the workers’ compensation claim.
- Burton sued under the ADA (disability discrimination) and Texas Labor Code §451.001 (retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Fifth Circuit reversed in part (ADA) and affirmed in part (retaliation) and remanded the ADA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freescale was Burton’s employer under the ADA | Burton: Freescale exercised control (supervision, performance reviews, and the decision to fire) and thus is an employer | Freescale: lacked payroll/benefits control and did not directly hire/fire/supervise | Court: Freescale was a joint employer under the hybrid control test (common‑law control dispositive) |
| Whether Manpower can be liable as a staffing agency | Burton: Manpower participated in the termination and the communication plan, so it is liable | Manpower: merely followed client (Freescale) and lacked decisionmaking authority | Court: Staffing firm can be liable if it participated in discrimination or knew/should have known and failed to act; factual dispute exists about Manpower’s participation |
| Whether Burton made a prima facie ADA case ("regarded as" disabled) | Burton: she reported inhalation/heart symptoms and was perceived as impaired after mid‑June report | Freescale: not aware Burton had a disability | Court: Evidence shows Freescale perceived Burton as impaired, so prima facie case established |
| Whether defendants’ proffered reason (poor performance) was pretextual | Burton: key justifications postdate decision, documentation was manufactured, inconsistent explanations, temporal proximity to her complaint | Defendants: cited prior reviews, broken wafer, Internet use and other incidents as legitimate reasons | Court: Material factual disputes (timing, credibility, manufactured documentation, shifting explanations) create inference of pretext as to ADA claim; summary judgment reversed on ADA claim |
| Whether Burton may recover under Texas Labor Code §451.001 (retaliation) | Burton: pretext/reversal of ADA pretext shows retaliation viable | Freescale/Manpower: Freescale argues improper defendant; Manpower argues no causal nexus to workers’ comp claim | Court: Freescale did not provide Burton’s workers’ compensation coverage and thus is not a proper defendant under §451.001; no evidence Manpower terminated her because she filed the claim — retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (jury may infer discrimination where employer’s reasons shown to be false)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (evidence of manufactured discipline and post‑hoc documentation can show pretext)
- Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311 (rejection of vague post‑hoc justifications; take a "snapshot" at moment of decision)
- Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 482 F.3d 408 (standard for genuine dispute and consideration of timing/inconsistency)
- Gee v. Principi, 289 F.3d 342 (shifting or inconsistent testimony by decisionmakers can support inference of pretext)
- Whitaker v. Milwaukee Cnty., 772 F.3d 802 (staffing agency liable only if it participated in discrimination or failed to take corrective measures)
- Bouchet v. Texas Mexican Ry. Co., 963 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.) (§451.001 protects persons entitled to Workers’ Comp benefits; nonsubscribers cannot be sued under predecessor statute)
- Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.) (coverage and employer‑employee inquiry must be individualized for workers’ comp/exclusive remedy issues)