5th Circuit rules on "mixing races" controversy

Are Americans living in a post-Obama world where white and black people co-exist as equals in every sphere and racial harmony prevails? To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, it would be pretty to think so. What protection does the law offer employees who espouse racial harmony at work and allegedly get fired for it? Would such a termination violate Title VII? On Aug. 27 the 5th Circuit said "no." Here are the key facts from the opinion in Floyd v. Amite County School District, et al.: Charlie Floyd was a track coach at a high school in Mississippi. He is black and worked at a mostly black high school. He ran a private track training program at the school and invited white students from private schools to participate. He said that when the president of the school board found out, the president told him "he did not — that they did not want them white kids over there at [the high school]. Coach, you know better than that" and that the president made statements to others to the effect that "Caucasian students had no business at [the high school's] track facilities" and that "Floyd had no business trying to bring African American and Caucasian students together with the summer program." Floyd later was fired. He said it was because of his race, the school board said it was because of various other factors. The 5th Circuit agreed that summary judgment was appropriate for the school board. Why? There was no evidence that the school board did anything to Floyd because of his race. Yes, the alleged comments, if true, show — according to the 5th Circuit — "clear racial animus," but it was not animus directed toward Floyd because of his race but towards the white students because of theirs. What could be a violation, according to the 5th Circuit? Firing a white woman for dating a black man or firing an employee because he has a biracial child. In each of those cases, the adverse action occurs because of the employee's race. Here that was not the case. I suppose if there was evidence that the board had animus toward Floyd because he, as a black man, had no business seeking to integrate the program, the 5th Circuit may have reached a different result (although at least one alleged statement came close). There wasn't, so it didn’t. Oh, one final thing. The opinion says that Floyd's attorney at oral argument argued that Floyd's mistake was allowing white and black students to drink from the same water fountain and stated that "regardless if he was white or black, that the racial animus about mixing races would have cost Coach Floyd his job."

CORRECTION: This blog has been corrected to indicate that Ernest Hemingway wrote, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" The words are not F. Scott Fitzgerald's.

Comments

[Tyson Snow, Salt Lake City]

Great post (as usual). Now I'm going to have to read the Fifth Circuit's opinion so I can figure out the nuts and bolts of their reasoning. It will be interested to see how this case gets treated by various other circuit courts of appeal.