Patricia Gill v. DIRTT Env Solutions, Inc.
18-50901
| 5th Cir. | Oct 25, 2019Background
- Patricia Gill, hired by DIRTT in 2005 as government sales director, was fired in 2015 after DIRTT hired a younger co-director, Antoinette Pahl, in 2014. Gill alleges age discrimination under the ADEA and TCHRA.
- From 2013–2015 coworkers repeatedly complained about Gill’s professional misconduct: giving incorrect information to clients, intruding on coworkers’ duties, excluding colleagues from contract discussions, and misclassifying contracts to increase commissions.
- DIRTT’s president communicated many complaints to Gill and sought meetings; DIRTT ultimately terminated Gill citing unprofessional behavior and refusal to comply with company standards.
- Gill filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue notice, and sued in federal court; DIRTT moved for summary judgment arguing it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and Gill could not show pretext.
- The district court granted summary judgment to DIRTT on both ADEA and TCHRA claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding Gill failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gill showed pretext at the third McDonnell Douglas step for ADEA/TCHRA claims | Gill argues DIRTT’s proffered reason (coworker complaints/unprofessionalism) was pretext for age discrimination | DIRTT contends it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and acted in good faith on complaints | No — Gill failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether DIRTT’s failure to follow its Code of Conduct in investigating supports pretext | Gill: deviation from internal procedures is evidence of discriminatory animus | DIRTT: no proof of nexus between procedural deviation and age-based treatment | Not probative without evidence that Gill was treated differently because of age; insufficient to show pretext |
| Whether DIRTT misrepresented investigation to the EEOC | Gill: DIRTT’s EEOC statement was erroneous and shows pretext | DIRTT: its EEOC position did not falsely state it completed or declined investigation; some investigation occurred | Court found no erroneous statement in the EEOC position; argument fails |
| Whether DIRTT relied on complaints in bad faith by not investigating/alerting Gill to every complaint | Gill: lack of thorough investigation and notice shows employer did not act in good faith | DIRTT: relied on multiple complaints, informed Gill of several, and made a reasonably informed decision; employer belief need not be correct | Court held DIRTT reasonably informed and acted in good faith; inaccurate allegations do not alone prove pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Goudeau v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2015) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA/TCHRA and distinguishes third-step standards)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (evidence that employer’s explanation is false can support inference of discrimination)
- Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2002) (false employer explanation combined with prima facie case may permit inference of discrimination)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (disparate treatment and employer failure to follow policies can be relevant to pretext analysis)