Dive Brief:
- A federal judge granted summary judgment on March 12 to 3M in a discrimination lawsuit filed by a White male former employee who alleged he was fired over policy violations for which Black female employees were not similarly terminated.
- The plaintiff in Barnes v. 3M Company, Inc. claimed he was fired for using his cellphone in a prohibited area and that two Black female employees accused of similar violations were not fired. The judge, however, determined that the proposed comparators’ conduct differed from the plaintiff’s, and therefore he failed to establish a prima facie discrimination claim.
- The judge further held that the plaintiff failed to establish pretext on 3M’s part because he had multiple options to remedy his violation but did not take any of them. The plaintiff also failed to state a claim under the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence framework for establishing intentional discrimination, per the court.
Dive Insight:
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination when making decisions about discipline and discharge, according to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance. Such prohibitions include differential treatment of two employees who commit similar offenses on the basis of their race, sex, religion or other protected categories.
In Barnes, the court found that the plaintiff failed to show that 3M’s policy was applied differently to him compared to other workers. When confronted by his supervisor to put his phone away when he was caught using it, the plaintiff failed to put his phone in an appropriate area, the court said, whereas other employees at issue took steps to comply after being warned about the policy by management.
The decision is the latest involving allegations of discrimination by a majority-group plaintiff. Several federal courts have weighed in on such cases in recent weeks, with one Pennsylvania judge siding with a state university in a White male professor’s discrimination lawsuit alleging the existence of a racially hostile work environment. In a Texas lawsuit also filed by a White male university employee, a federal magistrate judge refused to grant summary judgment to either side, instead holding that the plaintiff could bring his case before a jury.
Legal experts previously warned employers that lawsuits brought by majority-group plaintiffs — a category of cases known as “reverse discrimination” claims — may increase in the near-future thanks in part to increased public scrutiny of workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
