In Daywalker v. UTMB at Galveston, No. 22-40813, 2024 WL 94297 (5th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024), Rosandra Daywalker sued her employer, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (“UTMB”) for race discrimination, a hostile work environment based on race, and retaliation, all of which contributed to her wrongful termination when she was forced to resign.
In June 2015, Daywalker, a Black woman, graduated with honors from medical school, and subsequently joined a five-year residency program in Otolaryngology (treating head and neck conditions through surgery and medical management) at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (“UTMB”). In a residency program, recent medical school graduates gain specialized medical certifications under the guidance of experienced doctors. Daywalker was the only Black resident in UTMB’s Otolaryngology program class from 2015 to 2020.
Over Daywalker’s first two years at UTMB, certain supervisors reported that she had unexcused tardiness and absences in some clinical rotations and also failed to timely complete medical documentation. In her second year, Daywalker was still receiving negative feedback regarding her clinical documentation. While showing some improvement during her third year, Daywalker’s core competencies lagged behind her peers because of her clinical inefficiency and slow documentation as reported by certain supervisors. A May 2018, UTMB routine audit of the department’s medical documentation identified that Daywalker failed to completed records for five patients dating back almost a year. In response to being questioned about this failure by Szeremeta, Daywalker misrepresented that the patients “left without being seen” and should have been removed from the schedule and that Daywalker “subsequently created notes and ‘documentation’” to cover up her omissions. As a result, Szeremeta placed Daywalker on a a remediation plan.
Shortly after, Daywalker filed an internal complaint against Szeremet alleging that he created a racially hostile work environment and discriminated against her because she was Black based on three incidents that occurred over and two-and-a-half-year period. First, Daywalker complained that at a 2016 retreat, Szeremeta responded to a question regarding the low percentage of Black otolaryngologists by stating that he believed that Black medical students were simply not interested in otolaryngology. The second alleged incident occurred on an unidentified date when Szeremeta commented that a patient once “accused him of not giving enough pain medication because the child is Black” and asking Daywalker “why most Black people in Philadelphia used the emergency room for the majority of their health care.” The third complaint was Szeremeta once stated that Daywalker appeared as if she wanted to hit him after he told her that her about a delay in facial-plastics rotation.
While the complaint was pending during her third year, Daywalker sought and was granted three months off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) during which she missed the relevant training and could not complete her remediation plan. On November 6, 2018, her first day back, she met with Dr. Szeremeta and other program staff to discuss her status. Dr. Szeremeta informed her that she would have to repeat her third year during the 2018–2019 program year. Daywalker responded by immediately resigning her position.
How do you prove race discrimination at work?
The easiest way to prove race discrimination is through direct evidence – which is evidence that in and of itself shows that an adverse employment action was taken because of race. These circumstances are rare as employers do not often admit to engaging in unlawful discrimination. Absent direct evidence, proving workplace race discrimination involves a legal framework that a burden-shifting process. The legal standards and procedures may vary somewhat depending on the jurisdiction, but the following explanation generally outlines the process used under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, to establish an initial case (legally known as the prima facie case) of race discrimination, an employee generally needs to demonstrate the following elements:
- Membership in a Protected Class: The employee must belong to a racial or ethnic group protected by anti-discrimination laws.
- Qualification and Performance: The employee should be qualified for the job and performing at a level that meets the employer’s legitimate expectations.
- Adverse Employment Action: The employee must experience an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, reduction in pay, failure to hire, or other discriminatory acts.
- Circumstances Indicating Discrimination: There should be circumstances that suggest the adverse action occurred because of the employee’s race. In wrongful termination cases, this is typically shown by proof that the employee was replaced by someone outside the protected class. Alternatively, this element can be satisfied by evidence that the employee experienced less favorable treatment compared to other similarly situated employees who did not belong to the protected class, even though the circumstances were nearly identical.
Once the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to present a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The employer’s explanation does not need to be persuasive at this stage; it only needs to be a plausible reason that, if true, would not amount to discrimination. If the employer provides a non-discriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the stated reason is a pretext for discrimination. To do this, the employee must provide evidence suggesting that the employer’s proffered reason is false or did not really motivate the employer.
In Daywalker, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Daywalker’s race discrimination claim failed because she could not present a similarly situated coworker who was treated differently after ongoing documentation issues, including lying about five instances:
Daywalker cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination by merely pointing to other residents that UTMB’s faculty expressed concerns about. She has failed to show how their experiences in the field of practical medicine in Otolaryngology were “nearly identical.” … Daywalker asserts that Resident Three is similarly situated … UTMB counters that the record shows that Resident Three’s disciplinary history governed a vastly different faculty concern that she “[m]ay be having depth or eye/hand issues with endoscopic cases.” In other words, Resident Three has a disciplinary history with no similarity to Daywalker’s.
Id. at *7.
Going even further, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Daywalker would have also been unable to show pretext for her termination given that she admitted to ongoing problems with her charting and documentation and that “Daywalker does not attack UTMB’s reliance on its justification as unreasonable.” Id. at *9.
Best Race Discrimination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- What Evidence Do I Need To Show Race Discrimination At Work?
- Can I Sue For Race Discrimination If My Boss Breaks Rules?
- What Does My Job Have To Do When I Report Race Discrimination?
How do I prove that I’m in a racially hostile work environment?
Title VII also prohibits the creation of a work environment that is hostile or abusive due to discrimination. To make a claim for a hostile work environment, an employee must present evidence of pervasive or severe harassment based on membership in a protected class that impacts job conditions, terms, or privileges. When assessing a hostile work environment claim, courts examine the overall circumstances to determine if the alleged discriminatory behavior unreasonably interferes with an employee’s performance. Factors such as the severity and frequency of the conduct are considered, including whether it involves physical threats, humiliation, or offensive remarks. Discriminatory verbal intimidation, ridicule, and insults can be severe or pervasive enough to alter employment conditions and create a working environment that violates Title VII. For a hostile environment claim to be valid, the alleged behavior must be objectively and subjectively offensive – meaning that it must be offensive to the specific employee as well as under a reasonable employee standard.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Daywalker could not meet this standard:
“At most, Daywalker has shown that Dr. Szeremeta made a handful of statements offensive to employees of color over the span of a few years. The insensitive statements are separated by months [and] the course of alleged racially insensitive treatment is less prolonged and pervasive than other cases where we determined that the plaintiff failed to show that they suffered from extraordinarily pervasive discriminatory conduct.”
Id. at *10.
Best Racially Hostile Work Environment Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- What Is Considered A Racially Hostile Work Environment?
- Can Offensive Music Create A Hostile Work Environment In Violation Of Title VII?
- Hostile Work Environment: What Does “Severe Or Pervasive” Mean?
- What Evidence Do I Need To Prove Hostile Work Environment And Constructive Discharge?
What should I do if I am being harassed and discriminated against at work because I am Black?
Selecting Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm for your racial hostile work environment claim ensures specialized focus in employment law, particularly in cases involving workplace discrimination. With a demonstrated track record of success in similar cases, the firm has the experience and skills needed to navigate the complexities of racial discrimination issues effectively. Spitz takes a personalized approach, investing time to understand the unique details of your experience. This tailored strategy allows for a comprehensive and nuanced legal representation, addressing the specific challenges of your racial hostile work environment claim. One significant advantage is the “no fee guarantee.” This means you won’t incur legal fees unless Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm achieves a favorable outcome in your case. This financial arrangement makes high-quality legal representation more accessible and demonstrates the firm’s commitment to advocating for your rights without imposing a financial burden upfront.
Disclaimer:
The race discrimination, racially hostile work environment and wrongful termination information provided in this blog is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The content is based on a specific scenario and may not relate to your particular employment circumstances. Neither this blog nor this employee’s rights website create an attorney-client relationship. While efforts are made to ensure accuracy, individual circumstances may vary, and legal outcomes are contingent on specific facts. Readers are encouraged to consult with qualified legal professionals for advice tailored to their situations.