A Dallas court recently considered a racially-based employment discrimination and retaliation matter: Curry v. Telect, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-0933-D (N.D. Tex. June 15, 2009), available at https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv0933-22. Billy Curry sued his former employer, Telect, Inc., for discriminating against him by discharging him and for retaliating against him because he complained about the company’s protective equipment.
Telect claimed that it terminated Curry’s employment because Curry violated a safety regulation; however, both Curry and a coworker averred that Curry did not commit a violation. Curry’s coworker further averred that a supervisor threatened him with discipline if he did not “admit” that Curry committed a violation. Based on these facts, the Court denied summary judgment on the discrimination claim because a reasonable jury could find that Telect’s articulated reason for discharging Curry was untrue and pretextual.
The Court then examined the retaliation claim. The federal anti-discrimination law protects an employee from retaliation if the employee opposes a discriminatory employment practice. Prior to the safety regulation incident, Curry complained about the condition of the company’s protective equipment. The Court found that a company’s failure to provide adequate protective equipment is not a discriminatory employment practice prohibited by the anti-discrimination law. Thus, because a reasonable jury could not find that Curry engaged in an activity protected by the anti-discrimination law, the Court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim.
If you would like to discuss a discrimination or retaliation claim with an employment lawyer, please contact the employment lawyers at Clouse Dunn Khoshbin LLP at info@clousedunn.com.