Romericus Stewart v. BrownGreer, P.L.C., 655 F. App'x 1029

Background

Stewart, an HIV-positive, homosexual, African-American temp-to-perm call‑center worker, alleged coworkers made homophobic, racial, and disability‑related remarks while he worked for BrownGreer (placement via RHI).
Stewart reported the comments to BrownGreer; shortly thereafter he was required to attend remedial training and was not offered permanent employment.
Stewart sued under Title VII for hostile work environment and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for BrownGreer and RHI, dismissing all claims with prejudice.
On appeal Stewart properly challenged only the Title VII retaliation claim against BrownGreer (hostile‑work‑environment and claims against RHI were not adequately briefed and are waived).
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and focused on whether Stewart engaged in a protected activity—i.e., whether a reasonable person could have believed the reported conduct violated Title VII.
The court concluded the reported comments were isolated, often facially innocuous, and insufficient as a matter of law to support a reasonable belief that Title VII was violated; summary judgment for BrownGreer was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reporting coworkers' comments was a "protected activity" under Title VII supporting a retaliation claim	Stewart reported coworkers' alleged homophobic, racial, and disability remarks and argues reporting was protected activity that led to adverse action (remedial training, no hire)	BrownGreer argued the comments were isolated/offhand and not objectively violative of Title VII, so reporting was not protected activity	Held for BrownGreer: reporting was not protected because no reasonable person could have believed the incidents violated Title VII
Whether Stewart established causal link between report and adverse action	Stewart contends remedial training and non‑hire were retaliatory and causally connected to his complaint	BrownGreer contends adverse actions were not retaliatory given lack of protected activity and insufficiency of evidence	Court did not reach independent causation analysis because protected‑activity element failed
Whether isolated/offhand comments can constitute actionable harassment or support a retaliation claim	Stewart argued cumulative incidents and comments created actionable hostility and supported reasonable belief	BrownGreer argued single/isolated remarks and innocuous statements cannot as a matter of law form the basis for Title VII claims	Court held isolated/offhand comments insufficient; Title VII requires severe or pervasive conduct to be actionable
Whether sexual orientation is protected under Title VII for purposes of this case	Stewart proceeded as if sexual orientation claims could be cognizable	BrownGreer noted Title VII does not clearly cover sexual orientation; court declined to decide the issue	Court assumed arguendo sexual orientation protection but still found the conduct insufficient to create a reasonable belief of a Title VII violation

Key Cases Cited

Kariuki v. Tarango, 709 F.3d 495 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
RSR Corp. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 851 (5th Cir.) (conclusory assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir.) (prima facie elements of Title VII retaliation)
Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (reporting employer of unlawful practice can be protected activity)
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (offhand comments and isolated incidents ordinarily not actionable)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive)
EEOC v. Rite Way Serv., Inc., 819 F.3d 235 (5th Cir.) (facially discriminatory supervisor statements can raise genuine issue)
Brandon v. Sage Corp., 808 F.3d 266 (5th Cir.) (Title VII and sexual orientation—court declined to decide coverage in this context)