Walker v. Tronox LLC, 1:12-cv-00039

Walker worked for Tronox in Hamilton, Mississippi as a Trainee starting February 2000; promotion path: Trainee -> B Operator (2001) -> A Operator (July 2007) in the Oxidation Area.
As an A Operator, Walker initially qualified as Aluminum Chloride Operator and sought the higher Selas Operator position; ongoing training occurred as openings appeared.
Walker failed twice to qualify as Selas Operator, was demoted to B Operator, and informed he would re-qualify when an aluminum chloride A Operator opening existed.
On June 21, 2010 Walker filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination; he subsequently sued in federal court after removal.
The court granted Tronox’s summary judgment motion, holding Walker failed to establish a prima facie Title VII discrimination claim and failed to show a viable hostile-work-environment claim.
The ruling disposed of all Title VII claims with prejudice on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walker proves a prima facie Title VII discrimination case	Walker relies on disparate treatment; seeks comparator showing.	Walker cannot identify a valid, nearly identical comparator; no replacement outside protected class.	Discrimination claim fails; no viable comparator established.
Whether Walker has a valid comparator for disparate treatment	White males not subjected to the verbal test and promoted similarly.	No sufficiently comparable employee; record lacks nearly identical circumstances.	No proper comparator; prima facie case fails.
Whether Walker can show the required elements for hostile work environment	Racial slurs and harassment created a hostile environment.	Incidents were few, not severe or pervasive enough to alter terms/conditions of employment.	Hostile environment claim fails; summary judgment granted on harassment claim.
Whether the harassment evidence demonstrates conduct based on race	Harassment was racial in nature and pervasive.	Evidence insufficiently tied to race; isolated incidents and non-racial remarks.	Harassment not proven to be racially motivated; fails standard.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden on moving party to show absence of genuine issue of material fact)
Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (requires nearly identical circumstances for comparators in Title VII)
Little v. Republic Ref. Co., Ltd., 924 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 2001) (high standard for comparator similarity in McDonnell Douglas framework)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (credibility issues unresolved at summary judgment; courts resolve in movant’s favor when no genuine issue)
DeAngelis v. El Paso Mun. Police Officers Ass’n, 51 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 1995) (discriminatory harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile environment requires severe or pervasive conduct)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for hostile environment based on supervisor harassment)
Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2000) (requires near-identical facts for comparators)
Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2001) (comparator analysis in Title VII cases)
Carrera v. Commercial Coating Services Int’l, Ltd., 422 F. App’x 334 (5th Cir. 2011) (generalized harassment claims insufficient without concrete instances)
In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2010) (court will not create arguments not presented)