## Facts

- A group of African-American employees and former employees sued their employer, Douglas & Lomason Co., Inc., alleging racial discrimination in employment practices.
- The claims challenged alleged discrimination in areas including hiring, job assignments, promotions, discipline, and workplace conditions.
- Plaintiffs brought federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (and related theories).
- Plaintiffs relied on a combination of statistical comparisons and anecdotal accounts of workplace incidents to support allegations of intentional discrimination and broader, companywide discriminatory practices.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding the evidence insufficient to support liability under the asserted discrimination theories.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the record created genuine disputes of material fact requiring trial.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of race discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 to survive summary judgment under disparate-treatment frameworks.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ statistical and anecdotal evidence, considered together, supported an inference of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in employment decisions.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated and supported a disparate-impact theory by identifying a specific employment practice and showing a statistically supported adverse impact.
4. Whether the district court properly applied ordinary summary judgment standards to the evidentiary record in an employment discrimination case.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Douglas & Lomason.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer intentional discrimination or find the employer’s stated reasons to be pretext.
- The court concluded the statistical evidence was methodologically insufficient to support a reliable inference of discrimination.
- The court determined the anecdotal evidence was too limited to establish a companywide pattern or practice or to satisfy the threshold for a hostile work environment claim.
- The court held plaintiffs did not adequately develop a disparate-impact claim because they did not isolate a specific employment practice and show causation through appropriate statistical proof.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate in employment discrimination cases when the nonmovant fails to produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of the claim.
- Under McDonnell Douglas/Burdine, once an employer articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the plaintiff must produce evidence permitting a reasonable inference of pretext and discriminatory intent.
- Statistical proof must be tied to the challenged decisionmaking process and account for relevant variables; unsupported or poorly controlled disparities are insufficient.
- Pattern-or-practice claims require evidence supporting an inference of regular, repeated discrimination attributable to the employer, not isolated or generalized allegations.
- A hostile work environment requires proof that harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment.
- Disparate-impact claims require identification of a specific employment practice and a showing, typically through reliable statistics, that the practice caused a significant adverse impact on a protected group.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the employer because plaintiffs’ statistical analyses and anecdotal accounts did not create a genuine issue of material fact on disparate treatment, pattern-or-practice, hostile environment, or disparate impact theories under Title VII and § 1981.


Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 26 F.3d 1277 (5th Cir. 1994)