## Facts

- Majesco Software, Inc. operated in the United States as a wholly owned subsidiary of an India-based parent company and staffed many roles with Indian personnel, including technicians supplied through the parent.
- Ivor Keelan, a United Kingdom citizen, was hired in August 2000 as an at-will regional sales director in Texas with a base salary plus commissions.
- Keelan generated no sales during his first four months and was terminated in November 2001 for nonproduction; the position was later offered to a Canadian national who declined.
- David Sullivan, a United States citizen, was hired in March 2001 as an at-will director of alliances with a base salary plus commissions.
- In June 2001, Sullivan completed employment paperwork with another company (AppWorx) and earned more there over five months than he earned at Majesco over five months.
- Sullivan took an extended leave in early July 2001 and resigned by letter dated July 26, 2001.
- Both plaintiffs alleged Majesco preferred Indian employees and asserted that workforce composition and certain executive remarks supported an inference of national-origin bias.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Majesco on Title VII national-origin discrimination claims; Keelan and Sullivan appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Keelan established a prima facie case of Title VII national-origin discrimination in his termination, including by showing more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees of a different national origin under nearly identical circumstances.
2. Whether Sullivan produced sufficient evidence of constructive discharge—objectively intolerable working conditions that would compel a reasonable employee to resign—attributable to national-origin discrimination.
3. Whether generalized evidence (workforce composition and alleged remarks) could, without specific differential-treatment proof, create a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Majesco.
- Keelan failed to establish a prima facie case because he did not identify similarly situated Indian employees treated more favorably, and the record showed Indian employees were also terminated for nonproduction.
- Keelan’s statistical and anecdotal materials did not create a triable issue on discriminatory intent given undisputed performance deficiencies and the lack of proper comparators.
- Sullivan failed to establish constructive discharge because the record did not show objectively intolerable conditions, and his pursuit and acceptance of higher-paying work elsewhere undermined causation and intolerability.
- Because Sullivan did not show constructive discharge, he failed to show the requisite adverse employment action for his Title VII theory.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment claims based on circumstantial evidence proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
- For discriminatory discharge, a plaintiff generally must show replacement by someone outside the protected class or less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees of a different national origin under nearly identical circumstances.
- Workforce demographics and generalized allegations of preference, without evidence tied to the challenged employment decision and without differential treatment of proper comparators, ordinarily do not establish a genuine issue of material fact.
- Constructive discharge requires proof that working conditions were so objectively intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign; dissatisfaction or leaving for a better opportunity is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ national-origin discrimination theories failed at summary judgment because Keelan lacked evidence of more favorable treatment for similarly situated Indian employees and Sullivan did not show objectively intolerable, discrimination-based conditions amounting to constructive discharge.


Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2005)