Gipson v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp, No. 19-2475 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Dassault hired Gipson in 2004; he was promoted in 2006. In 2011, Gipson received a poor evaluation from his supervisor. Gipson complained to HR about his supervisor. Later, Gipson and his supervisor had an argument which ended with security escorting Gipson to HR. Gipson filed an EEOC charge but did not sue. Dassault assigned Gipson a different supervisor. In 2012, Gipson reported to HR a racially offensive email sent by a colleague. The sender was suspended. In 2013, Gipson’s team leader resigned. Gipson assumed some team leader duties. Dassault claims that Gipson was not given “personnel/ supervisor responsibilities.” In 2014, Dassault promoted Gipson to senior manufacturing engineer. Months later Dassault posted an open team leader position. Gipson applied but HR responded that he was not qualified because he had not served as a senior manufacturing engineer for at least 12 months. His application was never forwarded to the decision-makers. Another African-American was selected for the promotion.
Gipson claimed that he did not receive the promotion because of his race and because he filed a 2011 EEOC complaint. Dassault later terminated Gipson’s employment as part of a reduction in force. Gipson contends that two Caucasian senior manufacturing engineers, who he alleges had less seniority than him, were offered voluntary demotions in lieu of termination. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Dassault on claims under Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e), 42 U.S.C. 1981, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Supervisor's statement that plaintiff was "big and intimidating" was not direct evidence of racial animus; plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that defendant's decision not to promote him was the result of race discrimination; plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that defendant's decision not to promote plaintiff was in retaliation for a prior EEOC complaint; plaintiff failed to provide sufficient probative evidence to permit a finding in his favor that his termination was because of his race; nor could he show the termination was in retaliation for the EEOC complaint filed six years before his termination. [ December 21, 2020 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.