Primus Jackson, Jr. v. Corporation Service Company
601 F. App'x 280
5th Cir.2015Background
- Jackson was a long‑time Honeywell engineer (hired 1968; Principal Engineer 1992) who received documented performance concerns from his manager Ngo beginning in 2005 and was placed on a Letter of Expectation and a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in 2009–2010.
- After failing to meet the PIP, Jackson was reassigned to new projects under a new manager (Nguyen) and was terminated effective July 8, 2010.
- Jackson sued alleging race discrimination (Title VII, §1981, Texas law), age discrimination (ADEA, Texas law), retaliation, and hostile work environment (race and age).
- Honeywell moved for summary judgment on January 15, 2013; Jackson did not timely respond due to counsel’s medical hospitalization/recovery. The district court granted summary judgment for Honeywell and denied Rule 59(e) reconsideration; Jackson appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the full record (including materials from the Rule 59(e) motion) and affirmed summary judgment for Honeywell, finding no genuine issue of material fact on any claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (various acts) | Ngo assigned menial coding, withheld recognition, gave tasks/public presentation, denied promotion/pay because of race | Actions were not materially adverse (mere unfavorable assignments/awards); pay differences were not between nearly identical employees; OTPM rescinded for budget reasons | Summary judgment for Honeywell; no actionable adverse actions except OTPM (but employer offered nondiscriminatory reason and plaintiff failed to raise pretext) |
| Disparate pay / OTPM selection | Paid less than white employees; denied OTPM because of race | Pay differences explained by hire date, experience, position differences; OTPM position rescinded for budget and duties assigned elsewhere without promotion | Pay claim fails (not nearly identical); OTPM claim fails—no genuine issue of pretext |
| Retaliation (LOE/PIPs and termination after complaint) | Discipline and termination followed his complaint about Ngo in 2009 | LOE/PIPs were based on preexisting documented performance problems; decisionmakers lacked knowledge of the protected complaint and timing was remote | Summary judgment for Honeywell; no prima facie retaliation (no adverse action for warnings; no causal nexus for termination) |
| Hostile work environment (race and age) | Racial slurs/comments and age‑related remarks/pressure to retire created hostile environment | Alleged comments were isolated/incidental, not severe or pervasive and did not unreasonably interfere with work | Summary judgment for Honeywell; comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group, Inc., 482 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2007) (modified McDonnell Douglas analysis for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and genuine issue definition)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (definition of materially adverse actions in retaliation context)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) (elements for prima facie discrimination; timing for causal inference in retaliation)
- Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2004) (less favorable assignments and denial of awards are not necessarily adverse employment actions)
- EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., L.L.C., 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) (hostile work environment standard and factors for severity/pervasiveness)
- Hockman v. Westward Commc’ns, LLC, 407 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004) (factors to assess severity and pervasiveness of harassment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (isolated or offhand comments insufficient for hostile work environment)