Terrance Lavigne v. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C.
654 F. App'x 640
5th Cir.2016Background
- Terrance Lavigne worked for Cajun Deep Foundations from 2007 until his termination on March 22, 2011; he was paid as a Drill Shaft Foreman but contended he performed Superintendent duties without corresponding pay.
- Discipline history: 3-day suspension in Jan 2009 (safety equipment); Feb 7, 2011 accident (struck a bridge) led to three-day suspension, drug test, and one-year probation; March 2011 alleged Motor Vehicle Policy violation led to termination.
- Lavigne completed an EEOC Intake Questionnaire on March 28, 2011; the formal signed Charge of Discrimination received by EEOC was dated August 22, 2011 (later amended March 2012 to add retaliation).
- District court granted partial summary judgment dismissing Title VII compensation claims based on events before Oct 26, 2010 (300 days before Aug 22, 2011) and dismissing retaliatory-discharge claim as untimely for lack of relation back.
- Bench trial addressed (1) disparate treatment for the Feb 2011 suspension and (2) disparate compensation for post-Oct 26, 2010 events; district court initially found disparate pay established but on reconsideration reversed, finding proper comparators were other foremen and no discriminatory intent.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed: (a) pre-Oct 26, 2010 compensation claims waived/timely dismissed; (b) no reversal of district court factual findings on comparators or intent; (c) summary judgment on wrongful termination upheld for failure to show replacement by nonprotected person; (d) retaliation claim held not to relate back and thus time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of pre-Oct 26, 2010 Title VII compensation claims — whether EEOC Intake Questionnaire suffices as a charge | Lavigne: Intake Questionnaire (Mar 28, 2011) should count as the charge date, making earlier claims timely | Cajun: Only the formal signed charge (Aug 22, 2011) controls; claims before Oct 26, 2010 are time-barred | Waived on appeal; even if raised, determining sufficiency would be fact-intensive; summary judgment dismissal affirmed |
| Disparate compensation — appropriate comparators and discriminatory intent | Lavigne: He performed Superintendent duties and should be compared to Superintendents who were paid more; comments by co-workers show racial intent | Cajun: Lavigne sometimes did those duties; proper comparators are other foremen who similarly occasionally performed Superintendent tasks; decisionmaker lacked discriminatory intent | District court’s reconsideration affirmed: comparators were other foremen; no clear error in finding no discriminatory intent |
| Wrongful termination prima facie — whether replaced by someone outside protected class | Lavigne: Evidence (declaration) suggests a white employee (Vignes) filled the role | Cajun: Evidence shows Charles Nelson, an African-American, replaced Lavigne; plaintiff’s declaration does not show replacement | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiff offered only speculation and no evidence that a non-African-American replaced him |
| Retaliation claim — whether amended charge (Mar 2012) relates back to original charge | Lavigne: Retaliation claim grows out of same facts and should relate back to avoid time-bar | Cajun: Amended claim asserts a new legal theory; original charge did not allege retaliation or set out those facts | Held: Retaliation did not relate back (original charge lacked retaliation facts and box unchecked); claim time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 457 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment review standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and summary judgment evidence standards)
- Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008) (when an EEOC filing may constitute a sufficient charge)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for similarly situated comparators)
- Lindquist v. City of Pasadena, 669 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2012) (case-specific comparator inquiry)
- Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2003) (relation-back test for amended EEOC charges)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (discriminatory intent requirement for disparate-treatment claims)
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (appellate review of trial court findings on intent)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for employment discrimination prima facie case)