A recent trial victory by attorneys Eric Artrip and Teri Mostando in the Southern District of Alabama, serves as a reminder that race discrimination cases are alive and well. The trial was successful after a hard fought effort to fend off a motion for summary judgement. The Court in Watts v. J&L Indus. Servs., LLC, No. 24-50-MU, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64936 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 4, 2025) denied the motion for summary judgment in part and allowing the jury trial. But what does it take to meet the elements of a race discrimination case?  Many cases are dismissed even when it is undisputed that there were racial slurs. There are two ways as seen in the Watts case.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it an "unlawful employment practice" for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin …." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

It may not be enough to only allege someone used a racial slur in the workplace. Here are the elements:

1.       Do you belong to a protected class?  Race is a protected class.

2.       Did you suffer an adverse employment action? That means alteration of compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, loss of employment opportunities, or constructive discharge. Cotton v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 434 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006).

3.       Are you qualified to perform the job at issue or the task or circumstances at issue? Tynes v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just., 88 F.4th 939 (11th Cir. 2023).

4.       Did your employer treat a similarly situated employee outside of your protected class (i.e. your race) more favorably? A Title VII workplace discrimination claim can only be brought by the employee against the employer. Peppers v. Cobb Cnty., Ga., 835 F.3d 1289, 1297 (11^th Cir. 2016). And the employer must be the one taking adverse action. Another recent case, Jones v. Safebuilt, LLC, No. 24-10848, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11196 (11th Cir. May 9, 2025) was lost in part due to the failure to allege the employer-employee relationship.

5.       Also if your claim is under Title VII, you have to assert an EEOC charge within 180 days of the adverse action. Pijnenburg v. W. Georgia Health Sys., Inc., 255 F.3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2001).

In the Watts case, summary judgment was granted on the Title VII claims relating to Watts' reassignment and denial of transfer to other millwright jobs because he did not assert an EEOC charge within 180 days of the unlawful practice. Failure to submit a charge even if still employed is critical.

However, summary judgement was not granted as to Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims relating to his termination which occurred later nor as to his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for discrimination and retaliation. The law at §1981 provides:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

“Title VII and [Section] 1981 have the same requirements of proof and utilize the same analytical framework." Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1325 n.14 (11^th Cir. 2011); see also Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2000).  Thus, while Watts saw some claims dismissed, not all!

It is good to see a win here, but that does not occur without making sure that you meet the elements of a race discrimination case and then pleading various theories fitting the factual circumstances. This multi-pronged approach paid off in Watts. Congratulations to Eric and Teri!