In employment law, the concept of pretext refers to a false or fabricated reason given by an employer to justify an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or refusal to promote, when the real motivation is discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. Courts scrutinize the employer’s stated reason to determine whether it is merely a cover-up for illegal conduct, such as discrimination based on race, gender, age, or disability. If an employee can demonstrate that the employer’s explanation is a pretext, it strengthens their claim that the adverse action was motivated by unlawful factors, which can lead to liability for the employer. Pretext analysis is a critical tool in protecting employees from covert discrimination and ensuring fair workplace practices.
The Fifth Circuit considered whether a genuine issue(s) of material fact existed regarding Motiva’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination were pre-textual, precluding summary judgment regarding the age discrimination claim. The lower court’s decision granting summary judgment regarding Dabbasi’s age discrimination claim was reversed. This case involved a former Motiva employee who asserted claims of age and disability discrimination against the company. Dabbasi was a Gasoline Coordinator in the Economics and Scheduling Department at Motiva’s Port Arthur, TX location. Dabbasi v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., 107 F.4th 500, 503 (2024). Ultimately, Dabbasi was terminated for allegations of being too aggressive, poor performance, and poor attitude. Id. at 503 and 504. Dabbasi filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and later filed a lawsuit against Motiva. Id. For purposes of this blog, only Dabbasi’s age discrimination will be discussed. Though he pursued a claim for disability discrimination, it failed.
In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit decided that genuine issues of material facts regarding Dabbasi’s age discrimination claim was sufficient to surpass summary judgment. This rests on two findings. First, Dabbasi satisfied his initial burden of demonstrating his prima facie age discrimination claim. Second, while Motiva offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, it was not found worthy of credence. The ADEA and TCHRA have different standards when it comes to proving pretext. With respect to the ADEA, a plaintiff is subjected to a but-for standard. Specifically, a plaintiff must show that the employer’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason was not true by a preponderance of the evidence. Contrastingly, the TCHRA standard provides more leeway for a plaintiff asserting a claim for age discrimination.
“[A] plaintiff can prove discrimination… by establishing that either (1) the reason stated by the employer was a pretext for discrimination, or (2) the [employer’s] reason, while true, was only one reason for its conduct and discrimination is another motivating factor.”
Dabbasi v. Motiva Enters., LLC., 107 F.4th 500, 507 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Goudeau v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3dd 470,475 (5th Cir. 2015)). Before addressing what evidence Dabbasi offered to rebut his then employer’s stated reasons, let’s address the stated reasons first. Ultimately the Fifth Circuit found that Motiva’s offered reasons of “unsatisfactory performance ratings and evaluations, poor attitude, and failure to improve” were sufficient to satisfy its burden. Id. at 507. Nevertheless the inquiry does not end there.
Pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas standard, the final inquiry is whether the “proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Id. Ultimately the Court found that the non-discriminatory reasons provided by Motiva may lack credibility before a fact finder. Id. The evidence offered by Dabbasi which was deemed suggestive of pretext were verbal statements by upper level management indicating that younger people were the desired class for rotations. Id. This, coupled with Motiva filling coordinator positions with “early-career employees,” also underscored the weight of its proffered reasons. Id. Notably, Motiva also placed Dabbasi on a performance improvement plan and promised him a role that did not ever materialize despite Dabbasi’s numerous award for his exemplary performance and verbal assurance that his job was not in jeopardy. Id.
Ultimately, the Court deemed Dabbasi’s evidence as satisfactory in precluding summary judgment for his age discrimination claims under the ADEA and TCHRA. The lower court’s decision affirming summary judgment in Motiva’s favor was reversed and remanded.
#Age #Discrimination #Retaliation