Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 156 F.3d 581 (5th Cir. September 24, 1998)

Keywords: Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (wrongful termination, associational discrimination; mitigation of damages)

Introduction: Julie Deffenbaugh-Williams sued Wal-Mart under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 for race discrimination resulting in her termination. The jury found in favor of Deffenbaugh. A Fifth Circuit panel issued this opinion on September 24, 1998. However, this opinion was vacated when the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear this case en banc. The Court then reinstated this panel opinion in a decision issued on July 22, 1999 -- with the exception that the portion of the opinion on punitive damages was remanded in light of the intervening decision of Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 119 S.Ct. 2118 (1999). Click here to see the July 22, 1999 en banc decision.

Facts: Deffenbaugh was the jewelry manager at the Wal-Mart Hypermart in Arlington, Texas. Her supervisor was Dale Gipson. Deffenbaugh, who is white, began dating (and eventually married) a co-worker, Truce Williams, who is black. Deffenbaugh claims in August of 1993 she went to lunch with Gipson, Pat Price (the store manager) and Charlotte England (Deffenbaugh's direct supervisor until May or June of 1993). During the lunch, Deffenbaugh claims Price told her that she would never advance being associated with a black man and that Wal-Mart frowned upon fraternization.

In December of 1993, Gipson reprimanded Deffenbaugh for "shopping on the clock." She was suspended for one day.

On January 14, 1994, the day after Deffenbaugh married Williams, he told her he wanted to purchase a VCR from the electronics department. Just before Deffenbaugh clocked out, she went to the men's wear department to give Williams some cash. Williams asked her for her Wal-Mart discount card. She stopped near the electronics department, handed Williams the card and then went to check on the jewelry department before walking to the front of the store to clock out.

A few days later, Gipson terminated Deffenbaugh for shopping on the clock. Deffenbaugh tried to explain that she was not shopping, but Gipson would not investigate.

Law:

1. Association discrimination

   1. A white person who is discriminated against because of her relationship with a black person has stated a claim under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

   2. Deffenbaugh presented sufficient evidence of pretext.

2. Compensatory damages

   1. Wal-mart argues that Deffenbaugh failed to mitigate her damages because she voluntarily left a subsequent job.

   2. The Fifth Circuit disagrees. Deffenbaugh left the job after a sexual assault at her new residence and continued to seek employment. This was sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that Deffenbaugh mitigated her damages.

   3. Of course, Wal-Mart had the burden at trial of proving Deffenbaugh's failure to mitigate damages.

3. Click here to see actual case.