# Ralser v. Hudson Group HG Retail, LLC

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · January 8, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185138

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** January 8, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185138

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing summary judgment where plaintiff suffered “incessant racial slurs” incthluding “n****r” and “dumb monkey”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RICHARD RALSER CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NUMBER: 19-1359

HUDSON GROUP (HG) RETAIL, LLCO,R EDTE ARL .A ND RE ASONSSECTION: "G"(5)

Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, Hudson
Group (HG) Retail, LLC and New Orleans Air Ventures II (collectively "Hudson"). (Rec. doc.
18). Plaintiff, Richard Ralser, has filed an opposition memorandum (rec. doc. 21) and
Hudson filed a reply memorandum. (Rec. doc. 25). The Court heard oral argument on
November 13, 2019. (Rec. doc. 27). After thorough consideration of the pleadings, the law,
the factIs. , and tThHe Ea rRgEumLEeVnAtsN oTf cFoAuCnTsSe l, the Court rules as follows.
A. Undisputed Facts
1
Hudson operated concessions at the New Orleans International Airport, employing
Plaintiff as Assistant General Manager (“AGM”) for Airport concessions from May 7, 2014
until March 16, 2018. At the time of Plaintiff's hire, Hudson also employed Janice Scott (an
African American female and Hudson employee since 1997) as an AGM. Gina Trevino, a
white female, served as General Manager ("GM") at that time and was responsible for
1
Consistent with Local Rule 56.1, Hudson accompanied its memorandum with a “separate and concise
statement of the material facts which the moving party contends present no genuine issue.” (Rec. doc. 18-7).
Pursuant to Local Rule 56.2, Plaintiff accompanied his opposition memorandum with a “sepaIdra.te and concise
statement of the material facts which the opponent contends present a genuine issue.” (Rec. doc. 21-1).
Plaintiff objected only to Hudson’s statements of fact numbers 7, 10, 16, 19, 21, 23, and 25. ( ). Accordingly,
pursuant to Local Rule 56.2, the remaining statements of undisputed facts submitted by Hudson are deemed
supervising Plaintiff's and Scott’s work. Later, Gina Trevino left New Orleans and Lee Barrett
(“Barrett”), a white male, took over as GM of Hudson's operations and Plaintiff’s supervisor
until around April 2016, when he was replaced by Carol McElheney (“McElheney”), an

African American female.
Just prior departing as GM in 2016, Barrett gave Plaintiff a poor performance review.
Despite being aware of this poor review, McElheney did not dismiss Plaintiff when she
became GM, instead giving him an opportunity to continue in his position as an AGM.
During McElheney’s tenure as GM, Plaintiff complained to her about his co-worker,
Scott, asserting that Scott did not carry her weight as an AGM. McElheney believed that
Plaintiff's performance was significantly better than Scott’s and expressed that she was in
favor of dismissing Scott in 2017. Conversely, McElheney sent Plaintiff to work at other

airports, discussed with him whether he was interested in taking an available GM position in
Mobile, Alabama, and obtained approval to offer him that position, which he declined.
McElheney was promoted to Regional Vice President in January of 2017 and was
replaced as GM by Anthony Griffin (an African American male). After her promotion, on
numerous occasions, McElheney discussed with Bob Napoli, a Senior Vice President of
Hudson, the possibility of promoting Plaintiff to the GM position in New Orleans. She did not
discuss with Mr. Napoli promoting Ms. Scott to the GM position in New Orleans. In December
of 2017, McElheney requested and obtained a $5,000 raise for Plaintiff. Scott did not receive

such a raise.
Also in December of 2017 Mr. Griffin was replaced as GM by Sam Kogos (“Kogos”), a
white male. Kogos served in that position until February of 2018, at which time the GM
position became vacant. To a large extent, Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the hostile work
environment to which he was subjected and his claim that he was fired in retaliation for
complaining about that environment arise from events that occurred after the GM position
came open and was not filled. Also to a large extent, the parties disagree about several events

that occurred aBr. ouDnisdp tuhtaedt tFimacet.s 2

Following Kogos’ departure as GM in February of 2018, Plaintiff alleges that
McElheney “leaned on Mr. Ralser to perform most of the duties of the General Manager, but
he was not considered for promotion to the position.” (Rec. doc. 21 at p. 3). Specifically, he
alleges that he “was assigned [by McElheney] to deal with special projects and problems
regarding video advertising boards, clean up an area of the warehouse, to investigate an
3
injury involving one of the DuIdn.kin Donuts employees, and to do performance evaluations
for the Dunkin employees.” ( ). Conversely, Plaintiff alleges, “the other IAds.sistant General
Manager, Janice Scott, was not given additional general manager duties.” ( ). He attributes
this disparate treatmIedn. t to his being a white male whereas Scott and McElheney are African
American females. ( at 1, rec. doc. 21-2 at p. 2).
In addition to these indignities, Plaintiff alleges that “Ms. McElheney began a pattern
of unjustly blaming Mr. Ralser for thIde. consequences of her and other managers’ failure to
perform and share information.” ( at p. 4). For example, concerning 2017 employee
evaluations, McElheney “waited several days before she passed the assignment to perform

2
Plaintiff’s version of these events is taken from his declaration filed in support of his opposition memorandum
and from his affidavit submitted to the EEOC in support of his charge. (Rec. doc. 21-2 at pp. 1-14). Plaintiff also
submitted as summary judgment support emails he sent to himself “memorializing” certain events in his own
words. The Court does not consider these latter emails, which are unsworn hearsay statements, as appropriate
3evidence submitted in support of his position.
evaluations on several employees to me with only one day before the deadline set by
corporate. Then she instructed me not to perform evaluations on several individuals who
should have been given evaluations according to company policy. She gave me no

explanation to give the lower level managers and employees about why they were not all
getting evaluations.” (Rec. doc. 21-2 at p. 13).
Another example cited by Plaintiff of McElheney’s “unfairly making Mr. Ralser look
bad for her failure or the failure of her preferred non-white managers” involved an episode
in which Dunkin store management inIds.tructed its store employees to dispose of some yogurt
due to “major food safety issues.” ( at p. 4). According to Plaintiff (who claims he was
never informed about the instruction), when that instruction was not heeded and the Dunkin
managers emailed McElheney and him to ensure the yogurt got destroyed, McElheInde.y

responded to the email in part by stating “[a]lso, Richard the AGM could have handled.” ( ).
According to Plaintiff, “this was one of several rIedc.ent instances of Ms. McElheney blaming me
for problems that she knew I did not cause.” ( ).
Sometime in February 2018, Plaintiff claims he came to work to find Ms. McElheney
and another African American manager, Anthony Griffin, in Griffin’s office laughing. (Rec.
doc. 21 at p. 3). Plaintiff claims that when Ihde. greeted the two, McElheney said, “Oh no,
Richard I can’t take too much more of this.” ( ). When Plaintiff asked if she was talking to
him, McElheney allegedIlyd .said, “Yes. Your president is sleeping with a porn star” and began

laughing with Griffin. ( ). Plaintiff claims that he found this comment to be disrespectful,
inappropriate, and raIcdi.al, a “racist assumption” that he supports the President merely
because he is white. ( ).
Ralser claims that at some point after McElheney’s “Trump” comment, he complained
about McElheney’s “preferential treatment toward certain people as well as her making
racial and inflammatory remarks about President Trump being ‘your president’” to Joe
4
Aiello, a Dunkin Donuts Manager. (Rec. doc. 21 at p. 4).
th th
Thereafter, on March 15 or 16 , Plaintiff alleges he was called into a meeting with
McElheney and Cynthia Newton, the white Regional Human Resources Manager at Hudson.
(Rec. doc. 21 at p. 5). According to Plaintiff, McElheney began the meeting by telling Plaintiff
he needed to do a better job of controlling overtime, to which Plaintiff responded that “that
Janice Scott was supposed to be an [A]ssistant [G]eneral [M]anager equal to him, although
Ms. McElheney gave her preferential treatment to do whatever she wanted. He complained
that all Itdh.e work is delegated to him. All the responsibility and projects were delegated to
him.” ( ). Plaintiff further alleges that, in response to these statements, McElheney asked
him “Let me get this right Richard, you’re telling me I give Janice preferential treatment
because I am black and female, aIndd. Janice is black and female,” to which Plaintiff allegedly
responded “Yes that’s correct.” ( ).
What happened next is in serious dispute. Defendants, who claim the meeting was
called to issue Plaintiff a written warning about his performance, in particular his “lack of
communication and poor interpersonal skills with those whom he supervised,” allege that
Plaintiff “became irate, stood up and threw the papers onto the desk in front of Ms.

McElheney while yelling profanities and gesticulating.” (Rec. doc. 18-1 at p. 4). Defendants
claim he was thereafter escorted out of the meeting and that, after consultation between

4
McElheney; Newton; Robert Napoli, Senior Vice President of Hudson (“Napoli”); and John
Flaim, Senior Director of Human Resources for Hudson,I tdh.e decision was made to terminate
Plaintiff for his inappropriate conduct at the meeting. ( ).

Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that after he confirmed to McElheney his belief that
her treatment of him was based on his race, that she called Napoli and said “Bob, I’m sitting
here having a conversation with Richard and he’s telling me it’s all racial.” (Rec. doc. 21 at p.
6). He alleges this statementI dt.)o. Napoli was “confirmation” of his complaint of racial
discrimination to McElheney. ( He further alleges that McElheney informed him that he
would not be getting an evaluation the next month because his performance was below
standard aIndd. that he thereafter “calmly got up and left” without being escorted from the
building. ( ).

The parties agree that Scott was also eventually terminated for poor job performance
on ApriIlI 2. 4, 20L1A8W, ju AsNt oDv AerN aA mLYoSnItSh after Plaintiff’s termination.
A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate “only if ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ when viewed in
the light most faTvIoGr aInbsl.e Ctoo. tvh.e S neodgnw-micokv aJanmt, e‘ssh oofw W thaasht itnhgetroen is no genuine issue as to any
th
material fact.’” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5 Cir.
2002)(quoting , 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). A dispute about
a material fact is “genuine” if theId e.videnceA nisd esruscohn that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. (citing , 477 U.S. at 248). The court must draw
Id. Anderson
all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. (citing , 477 U.S. at
255).
“Once the moving party has initCiaellloyt sehx oCwornp .‘ tvh. aCta tthreetrte is an absence of evidence to

support the non-moving party’s cause,’ , 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), the
non-moIdv.ant must come forward wMitha t‘ssupsehciitfaic E flaecc.t sIn’ dshuos.w Cion. gv .a Z egneintuh iRnae dfiaoctual issue for
trial.” (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); , 475 U.S. 574,
587 (1986)). Conclusory allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences,
unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumIde.ntation SdEoC n vo. tR aedceilqeuately substitute for
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. (citing , 10 F.3d 1093, 1097
th
(5 Cir. 1993)). Additionally, if the nonmoving party would bear the burden of proof of the
dispositive issue at trial, then the moving party can satisfy its burden by proving that the
evidence in the record coCnetalointesx insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving paBrt. y’Ds icslcariimm.i nation/H, 4o7st7i lUe .WS. oartk 3 E2n5v. ironment

Although less than entirely clear from the pleadings, Plaintiff has conceded through
counsel that his race discrimination claim is based solely on what he alleges was a hostile
work environment arising from race discrimination against him. (Rec. doc. 21 at p. 10
(“Plaintiff only intends to assert a hostile work environment claim for discrimination”)).
Moreover, he has conceded that the relevant time period during which the hostile work

environment existed was the time between Kogos’ departure and Plaintiff’s termination –
February of 2018 until March 15 or 16, 2018. (Rec. doc. 31 at pp. 18-19).
“A hostile work environment exists ‘when the workplace is permeated with
discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to
alter the condSittieownas rto vf. Mthises . Tvricatnimsp'.s C oemmmp'lnoyment and create an abusive working
th
eNnavti'lr oRn.Rm. Peansts.’e” n ger Corp. v. Morgan , 586 F.3d 321, 328 (5 Cir. 2009) (quoting
, 536 U.S. 101, 116 (2002)).
To establish a claim of hostile work environment under Title VII, a plaintiff must
prove that he:
(1) belongs to a protected group; (2) was subjected to
unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment complained of
was based on race; (4) the harassment complained of
affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; (5)
the employer knew or should have known of the
harassment in question and failed to take prompt remedial
action. Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc.
cert.
denied th ,
670 F.3d 644, 651 (R5am Cseiry. ), v.
Hender, son 586 U.S. 817
(2012)(quoting
th
, 286 F.3d 264, 268 (5
Cir. 2002)).

“Hostile work environment” racial harassment occurs when an employer's conduct
“‘has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work
pMeerrfiotormr aSanvc.e Boarn kc, rFeSaBti nvg. Vainn soinntimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.’”
, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a))
(emphasis added).
In order to find a workplace severely pervasive for harassment
and hostile work environment to be actionable, courts consider
a totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the
conduct, its severity, and whether it was physically threatening
or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance. The work
environment must be both subjectively and objectively
offensive—one that a reasonable person would find hostile and
one the victim found offensive. Williams v. Clegg's Nursery,
LLC
87836 at *39 (M.D. La. July
7, 2016).
prima
facie Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the third and fourth elements of a
case of discriminatory hostile work environment because he cannot establish that
McElheney’s complained-of conduct was based on race or that her alleged actions were so
severe or pervasive that they affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. For the
following reasons, the Court agrees.
In his opposition memorandum filed in response to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiff’s argument in support of his hostile work environment claim is comprised
of but a single paragraph:
Plaintiff only intends to assert a hostile working environment
claim for discrimination. Plaintiff suffered a racial comment
from his supervisor in the same month that he was required to
do the GM job without consideration for the promotion, while
the other AGM was given easier assignments, and his manager
set him up to look bad on numerous occasions. As shown in Mr.
Ralser’s Declaration, as the only white manager, he was singled
out for blame while the other managers were protected. The
racial comments by Mr. McElheney, combined with her effort to
unfairly hurt his reputation, hurt Plaintiff’s ability to focus on his
job duties.

(Rec. doc. 21 at p. 10).

This is Plaintiff’s entire argument in support of his discrimination claim and it reveals a fatal
lack of evidence of race-based harassment that had the “purpose or effect of unreasonably
interfering with [Plaintiff’s] workS epee Mrfeorrimtoar nScaev . oBra nckr,e FaStiBng an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.’” , 477 U.S. at 65. i.e.
Before turning to Plaintiff’s allegation regarding the “racial comment,” , the “your
president” comment, the Court addresses the notion that McElheney’s requiring Plaintiff to
“do the GM job without consideration for the promotion, while the other GM was given easier
assignments” was race-based discrimination or harassment. Simply, there is no evidence to
establish that this conduct was based on race. Plaintiff and his counsel, both in brief and at

the hearing, have leaned on the fact that he was treated differently than Scott, an African
American woman, which in and of itself is said to be evidence of race-based discrimination.
But as the Court pointed out at the hearing, it is undisputed that at the end of 2017, Plaintiff
was given a $5,000 raise – at the recommendation of McElheney – and Scott was not. So
while the two may have had similar job titles and even similar job duties, Plaintiff was
admittedly being paid more than Scott and might therefore be expected to be given some
more difficult assignments than Scott while the GM position was vacant.
In the same vein regarding Plaintiff’s complaints about being made to “look bad” by

McElheney, even if they are true (and the Court of course takes the Plaintiff’s factual
allegations to be true in the summary judgment context), there is simply no evidence linking
McElheney’s conduct to Plaintiff’s race. The controversies surrounding the employee
evaluations McElheney assigned to Plaintiff at the eleventh hour and the “tainted yogurt”
episode may have been viewed by Plaintiff as unfair, but there is zero evidence – direct or
circumstantial – that either episode was related to his race.
Which brings us to the “your president” comment. Importantly, the comment on its
face is race-neutral, yet Plaintiff takes McElheney’s reference to President Trump as “your”

president to be a “racial assumption.” (Rec. doc. 21 at p. 3). While that may have been
Plaintiff’s takeaway, the actual comment itself refers to the President and does not mention
race at all. Indeed, the person making the “racial assumption” here is Plaintiff and such
assumptions do not carry the day in defeating summary judgment on claims such as this one.
Even if the Court were to find that there was some evidence connecting the
Defendants’ complained-opfr icmoan dfauccite to racial animus toward Plaintiff sufficient to establish
the third element of the case of hostile work environment, it is clear that that

conduct does not rise to the level necessary to satisfy the fourth – that the workplace be
“permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is suSfefiec iSetnetwlya rstevere
or pervasive” so as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment. , 586
F.3d at 328.
Turning again to the supposedly “racial comment” about the President, it is indeed
true that racially “discriminatory verbal intimidation, ridicule, and insults may be sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the Mviicrtei mv.' sT eemx.p Ploluymmbeinntg a Snudp cprleya tCeo a., nI nacb.usive
working environment that violates Title VII.” , 286
th
Fed.Appx. 138, 141 (5 Cir. 2008).
To survive summary judgment on a hostile work environment claim based on race
and race-based insults or comments, the nonmovant must create a fact issue as to each of the
following elements: “(1) racially discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insults that are;
(2) sufficiently severe or pervasive that theyW; (a3lk)e arl tve.r T thhoe mcopnsdonitions of employment; and (4)
th
create aonve arbruulseidv eo nw ootrhkeirn ggr eonuvnidrso bnym Beunrtl.i”n gton N. & Santa Fe Ry, . 2C1o4. v F. W.3dh i6te15, 625 (5 Cir.
2000), , 548 U.S. 53, 67
(2006). WhetheSr eae wHoarrkr ies nvv. iFroornkmlieftn St yms.e Ientcs. ,these criteria depends upon the totality of the
circumstances. 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)). In other words, “to
establish a viable hostile work enviroBnrmooeknst v c. lFaiirmes, ttohnee p Plaoilnytmifef rms,u LsLt Cp,r esent more than a few
isolated incidents of racial enmity.” 70 F.Supp.3d 816, 857
(E.D. Tex. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff admits that McElheney’s single comment about President Trump was
the first and only “racially discriminatory” comment she ever made to him. (Rec. doc. 18-5
at p. 37). Simply stated, this single comment cannot conceivably be considered “severe or

pervasive” enough to pass muster. As noted above, on its face, the comment is race-neutral.
And even crediting Plaintiff’s argument that he perceived some implicit racial undertone to
the reference to Donald Trump as “your president,” this one-time, benign comment pales in
comparison to other more inflammatory comments that have been found to support hostile
5
work environment claims.
The “President Trump” comment, then, carries insufficient weight alone. It can only
conceivably carry any weight if it combines sufficiently with other disSchreipmhienradt ovr. yC ocomnpdturocltl einr
“otfo Ptuabli.t Ay”c ctoou bnet sc oofn Sstiadteer oefd T “eoxbajsectively and subjectively offecnesritv.e d.”e n ied
th
Harris v. Forklift , 168 F.3d 871, 874 (5 Cir.), , 528 U.S. 923 (1999)
(citing , 510 U.S. 17, 21–22 (1993)). Notwithstanding that the Court has
already found a lack of evidentiary support to establish that Plaintiff’s other complaints of
discrimination were based on race, a brief examination of those complaints in the context of
the “severe and pervasive” analysis is warranted.

See, e.g., Walker
5 Daniels v.
E s sex Group, Inc. , 214 F.3d 615 at 625 (holding that plaintiff survives summary judgment where evidence
demonstrated years of inflammatory racthial epithets, including “n****r” and “little black monkey”);
, 937 F.2d 1264, 1266 (7 CirS. 1pr9i9g1g)s (vf.i nDdiainmgo snudm Amutaor yG jluasdsgment for defendant inappropriate
where plaintiff was subjected to “n****r jokes” for a 10-year period and whose workstation was adthorned with
“a human-sbizuetd s edeumPimckye nws ivth. Sah ebllla Tcke chhe. aVde”n)t; ures, Inc. , 242 F.3d 179, 182 (4 Cir. 2001)
(reversing summary judgment where plaintiff suffered “incessant racial slurs” incthluding “n****r” and “dumb
monkey”); , 118 Fed.ApMpoxs. l8e4y 2v., M85a0ri o(5n C oCuirn.t 2y,0 M0i4s)s .(holding that a
company Christmas party where a skit with characters in blackface was performed and racially insensitive
comments wthere made did not create a hostile work environment); , 111 Fed.Appx.
First of all, Plaintiff complains of allegedly discriminatory conduct that occurred
between Kogos’ departure on February 19, 2018 and Plaintiff’s own termination on March
15 or 16, 2018. This is a period of less than one month. While it is certainly possible to

imagine a level of harassment occurring in such a short period of timep rthimata c foauclide rise to the
level necessary to satisfy the “severe and pervasive” element of the case, such
harassment would no doubt have to be egregious. It is simply not possible to find that the
inconveniences and mundane slings and arrows to which Plaintiff was exposed for less than
a month were capable of creating or did create a work environment “both subjectively and
objectively offensiSveee— Woinlleia tmhsat a reasonable person would find hostile and one the victim
found offensive.” , 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87836 at *39.
No reasonable person who has spent any time in the workplace could find the handful

of unpleasant episodes that Plaintiff complains about to be objectively hostile, even if they
were based on his race. And, notably, Plaintiff has not cited the Court to a single case to
support his contention that these various episodes rise to an actionable critical mass of
discriminatory conduct.
Because Plaintiff cannot establish that any of the complained-of conduct was based
on race or racial animus or that he was subjected to racial harassment so severe and
pervasive that it affected a term, condition, or privilege of his employment, his
discriminatoryC .h oRsteitlael wiaotirokn e nvironment claim fails.

i.e.
Plaintiff’s other claim against Defendants is for retaliation, , that he was terminated
by Hudson in retaliation for his complaining to his superiors about McElheney’s
discriminatory treatment of him.
A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for unlawful retaliation by proving: (1) that
he engaged in activity protected by Title VII, (2) that an adverse employment action
occurred, and (3) thatL ao ncagu vs.a lE lainstkfi eelxdi sCteodll ebgeetween the protected activity and the saedev earlssoe
th
eMmcMpliollyamn evn. Rt uasctt Cioonll.e ge, Inc. , 88 F.3d 300, 304 (5 Cir. 1996);
th
, 710 F.2d 1112, 1116 (5 Cir. 1983). An employee has engaged
in activity protected by Title VII if he has either: (1) “opposed any practice made an unlawful
employment practice” by Title VII or (2) “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated
in anyI md.anner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–
3(a). The opposition clause of § 2000e–3(a) requires the employee to demonIsdt.rasteee tahlsaot
Phea yhnaed v a. tM lecaLsetm a o“rree'ass Wonhaobllees ableel i&ef R” tehtaaitl tShteo prersactices he opposed were unlawful. ,
th
cert. denied , 654 F.2d 1130, 1140 (5 Cir. Unit A 1981),
, 455 U.S. 1000 (1982).
Plaintiff correctly points out that “[i]t has long been the law in this and other circuits
that a plaintiff contending that [he] was retaliated against for proactively reporting
employment discrimination need not show that the discrimination rose to the level of a Title
VII violEaqtiuoanl, Ebmutp 'mt Oupstp oart tluenaistty sChoomwm a'n r ev.a Rsoitnea Wblaey b Seelrievf., tIhnca.t it did.” (Rec. doc. 21 at p. 7)
th
(citing , 819 F.3d 235 (5 Cir. 2016)).
The threshold question for the Court here is whether, when Plaintiff complained
about McElheney’s treatment of him to McElheney and Newton, he had a “reasonable belief”
that she had violated Title VII. While the Court has already found that Plaintiff cannot
establish the elements of his underlying hostile work environment claim, such a finding does
Sneoet, nee.gc.e, Rssitaer iWlya my eSaenrv s.ummary judgment will be appropriate on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
, 819 F.3d at 243-44.
Leading up to the “your president” comment by McElheney, the allegedly
discriminatory conduct complained of by Plaintiff is limited to a period of no more than three
months in which McElheney allegedly: (1) asked Plaintiff to “perform the additional [GM]

duties without receiving the title or pay raise associated with the higher level position” and
(2) blamed Plaintiff for “the shortcomings of herself and the rest of her management team,
all of whom were not white.” (Rec. doc. 21 at p. 8). Plaintiff adds that McElheney’s one-time
comment about Donald Trump being “his” president would “influence a reasonable person’s
interpretation of Ms. McElheney’s disparate treatment in terms of job assignmenIdts. and
unfair attempts to pin blame on Mr. Ralser while protecting the black managers.” ( at p.
7). For a number of reasons, the Court disagrees that any reasonable person could interpret
these experiences, taken together and in context, as violative of Title VII.

While Plaintiff continuously complains of McElheney’s “disparate treatment” of him,
especially as compared to her treatment of Scott, those complaints ignore a number of
important undisputed facts that bear upon whether he could have reasonably believed that
treatment was the product of racial discrimination. First and foremost (and contrary to
Plaintiff’s counsel’s argument otherwise), Plaintiff has conceded that he always believed he
was being unfairly treated differently from Scott throughout their tenures at the airport. The
following testimony of Plaintiff is telling in this regard:
Q. O.K. When did that – this preferential treatment, you're
describing, when did that begin?
A. Since Day One when Carol was GM.

Q. O.K. So was Ms. Janice Scott working with you as AGM,
prior to when Ms. McElheney started?
A. She was.
Q. Was she being treated any differently at that time, before
Ms. McElheney started working as GM at New Orleans
Retail Operations?
A. I can say the work was never distributed fairly while I
worked with Janice Scott -- the entire time -- at New
Orleans Airport.

Q. Isn't the reason for that, that she was not as able as you
were to perform well?
A. We all accepted the job, and accepted the position. She
said yes to the position, just like I said yes to the position.
Now, if she had any kind of medical conditions, or
reasons why she couldn't, I'm not aware of it.

Q. O.K.
A. But as far as holding an Assistant Manager's position, she
should be held at the same standard as I am, if she's going
to hold that same position.

Q. Do you -- do you believe that she performed as well as
you did in the position of Assistant General Manager?
A. No.

Q. Do you know whether Ms. McElheney thought that she
did not perform as well as you did?
A. Ms. McElheney was well aware that she didn't perform
as well as I did.
. . . .
Q. If I understand you correctly, this is from the moment
you started working as AGM, that Ms. Scott received what
you considered to be preferential treatment; is that
right?
A . Correct.

(Rec. doc. 18-5 at pp. 13-14).

Plaintiff testified very clearly that he believes that Scott was treated more favorably than him
“from the moment he started working as AGM” at the airport. A review of the facts
surrounding that employment tenure is important here.
When Plaintiff was hired in May of 2014, the GM (and his supervisor) was Gina
Trevino, a white woman. (Rec. doc. 18-5 at p. 7). When Trevino left, she was replaced as GM
Id
(and Plaintiff’s supervisor) by Lee Barrett, a white male. ( . at p. 9). McElheney replaced
Barrett in April 2016, but not before Barrett, the white male GM, submitted an unfavorable
written performance review of Plaintiff, which he shared with McElheney. (Rec. doc. 18-7 at

p. 2). Despite this unfavorable review from Plaintiff’s former supervisor, McElheney, the new
African American female GM, did noItd d.ismiss Plaintiff but kept him on with an opportunity
to continue his position as AGM. ( ). And not only did McElheney retain Plaintiff, she
recommended and obtained for him a $5,000 raIdis.e in December of 2017, one year and eight
months after she first began supervising him. ( at p. 4). Scott, on the other hand, received
no suchI dr.aise. McElheney was followed in the GM position by Sam Kogos, another white
male. ( ).
Over the period of time during which Plaintiff claims to have been treated less

favorably than Scott, he was supervised by three white GMs and one African American GM,
McElheney, who also happens to be the only GM who sought and obtained a $5,000 raise for
Plaintiff (a mere three months before his departure). Under these facts, no reasonable
person in Plaintiff’s position could believe that any disparate treatment of him as compared
to Scott could have been the result of racial animus or bias.
According to his brief, Plaintiff was retaliated against for complaining of race
th th
discrimination at the March 15 or 16 meeting, a complaint he describes as follows:
On March 15 or 16, Mr. Ralser was called into the meeting with
Ms. McElheney and Ms. Newton. Ms. McElheney began to tell Mr.
Ralser that he needed to do better to control overtime, Mr.
Ralser responded that Janice Scott was supposed to be an
assistant general manager equal to him, although Ms.
McElheney gave her preferential treatment to do whatever she
wanted. He complained that all the work is delegated to him. All
the responsibility and projects were delegated to him. Ms.
McElheney responded by asking, “Let me get this right Richard,
am black and female, and Janice is black and female?” Mr. Ralser
said “Yes that’s correct.”

(Rec. doc. 21 at p. 5).

Even if Plaintiff actually believed that McElheney was treating him differently because
he was a white male and she was an African American female, that belief could not be
objectively reasonable considering all the circumstances set forth above.
The same must be said of the “your president” comment. There is nothing overtly
racial or facially offensive about the comment. Plaintiff explains in his affidavit that:
I was offended by her assumption that Trump was "my
president" because I am white. This made me see that Ms.
McElheney did not see me as an Assistant General Manager but
saw me as a White Assistant Manager. The fact that she did this
in front of one of our black management colleagues made it clear
to me that I was not part of her "in group” that made the jokes,
but instead I was the butt of the joke.

(Rec. doc. 21-2 at p. 8).

Again, while Plaintiff may have made the assumption that McElheney’s comment about the
President was race-based and he may been subjectively “offended” by it, the Court’s task is
to determine whether a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances could have
6
interpreted this single comment as having violated Title VII. The Court has no choice but to
answer that question in the negative. And in the final analysis, even taking this stray
comment together with all of Plaintiff’s other complaints – and assuming they are all true –
the Court finds there is no critical mass of indignities that rises to the level sufficient to have
given the Plaintiff a reasonable belief that McElheney was discriminating against him
because of his race.
6
Accordingly, because the Court finds that Plaintiff did not engage in an activity
protected by Title VII, it must find that his retaliation claim is fatally flawed and that it should
be dismissed. D. Abuse of Rights

Because Plaintiff included a claim under the Louisiana abuse-of-rights doctrine, the
Court briefly addresses it here, although he made no serious effort to support that claim in
response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
The abuse-of-rights doctrine “is a civilian concept which is applied only in limited
circumstances becTaruussec hiitnsg earp vp.l Picaaktion renders unenforceable one's otherwise judicially
protected rights.” , 513 So.2d 1151, 1154 (La. 1987). It is sparingly applied
by Louisiana courts and then only when one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) the

predominant motive for the exercise of the right was to cause harm; (2) if there was no
serious or legitimate motive for exercising the right; (3) if the exercise of the right is against
moral rules, good faith, or elementary Sfaeeir inde.;sIsl;l ionro,i (s4 C)e inft trhael Griuglhf Rt aisi leroxeardc Cisoe. dv . fIonrt ear pnuatripoonsael
oHtahrevre tshtearn C toh.at for which it is granted.
, 368 So.2d 1009, 1013 (La. 1979).
Here, Plaintiff has made no real effort to establish that Defendants abused any right
or that any of the conditions precedent to invoking the doctrine are present in this case. The
following comprises his entire argument in support of his abuse-of-rights claim found in his

opposition memorandum:
Plaintiff’s evidence satisfies the elements of abuse of rights. The
summary judgment evidence shows that Ms. McElheney and Ms.
Newton made up lies about his conduct in order to get him fired.
The right to fire at will is not intended to allow employers to
avoid the consequences of their illegal actions by making up lies
motivation to cause harm, a lack of legitimate motive, and there
is no benefit to Defendant in firing a productive employee who
just got a $5,000 raise.

(Rec. doc. 21 at p. 11).

Despite referring to his “summary judgment evidence” in support of this claim, there
simply is none. Plaintiff’s own statements and subjective beliefs about what happened to
him and why fall far short of the sort of factual support necessary to maintain the rarely
invokedII aI.b useC-oOfN-rCigLhUtsS IcOlaNim .
After a thorough examination of the evidence, the pleadings, the applicable law, and
for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby grants Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff cannot establish the necessary elements of his claims for hostile work
environment, retaliation, or abuse-of-rights and, as a consequence, those claims – and this
lawsuit – are hereby dismissed with p8rethjudice. JudgmeJnat nwuiallr bye entered accordingly.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2020.

MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185138. Public record. Not legal advice.