Shelton Frazier v. Sabine River Authority, 509 F. App'x 370

Frazier, an African-American, began as an unclassified park attendant with Sabine River Authority in May 2008 and was later promoted to a classified Civil Service position with raises and benefits.
He learned a white unclassified employee, Seth Sebastian, was paid $10/hour though he never became classified, allegedly under different pay scales.
In February 2011, Frazier reported racially charged language and concerns to his supervisor, which were escalated to management.
A March 2011 meeting with a supervisor over Frazier’s cell phone use became heated; an executive director allowed both parties to go home with pay and later found no threat of violence.
Frazier alleged additional racially discriminatory incidents, including noose imagery, a co-worker using “nigger,” and a misinterpretation of a town name as racially charged.
Frazier filed an EEOC charge in August 2011, resigned later that month, received a right-to-sue letter, and then filed suit alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment; the district court granted Sabine summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie race discrimination with a comparator	Frazier claims Sebastian is a valid comparator and paid more due to race.	Sabine contends the two were not under nearly identical circumstances to compare.	No reversible error; no valid comparator, so no prima facie case.
Fair Pay Act timeliness	Frazier argues tolling and ongoing discriminatory impact, dating from his promotion.	Pay differential ceased after promotion; claim time-barred under Fair Pay Act.	Claim time-barred; no continuing discriminatory action after promotion.
Retaliation preservation	Retention of retaliation claim should be allowed despite EEOC form marks.	Charge failed to raise or describe retaliation; not preserved.	Retaliation claim was not preserved and not addressed on the merits.
Hostile work environment	Harassment, threats, and racially charged conduct created a hostile environment.	Incidents were isolated and not severe or pervasive; not based on race.	No prima facie hostile work environment; summary judgment affirmed.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
Turner v. Kan. City S. Ry., 675 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 2012) (nearly identical circumstances requirement for comparators)
Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Moreno, 667 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
Stewart v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 586 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2009) (burden-shifting and reasonable inferences in discrimination cases)
Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2005) (hostile environment analysis factors)
Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) (consideration of cumulative circumstances in hostile environment claims)
Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970) (scope of retaliation/ discrimination charge inquiries)
Abarca v. Metro. Transit Auth., 404 F.3d 938 (5th Cir. 2005) (prima facie framework in discrimination cases)