Reported / Citable
Background
Marjorie Ozan, a 62-year-old Black woman, worked at Lubrizol’s Deer Park plant from 2007 until her separation in March 2024. After serving as a Production Operator, she became a Plant Foreman. Ozan alleged that a male supervisor subjected her to gender discrimination in 2018 and 2019, which she reported internally and later raised in a January 2023 EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination.
Lubrizol retained a consultant in 2023 to recommend organizational changes. The resulting restructuring eliminated the Foreman role. Lubrizol evaluated employees for new positions using supervisors’ input, 2023 performance evaluations, and operations managers’ assessments. Ozan’s operations manager rated her lowest among the foremen in her unit and concluded that she was less qualified for available roles because of gaps in technical, operational, and process knowledge. Lubrizol separated Ozan and 17 other employees.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Keith P. Ellison granted Lubrizol’s summary-judgment motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Ozan voluntarily abandoned her Equal Pay Act discrimination claim. Her ADEA retaliation claim failed because her EEOC charge alleged sex discrimination, not age discrimination, and therefore was not protected activity under the ADEA.
Her Title VII and Texas Labor Code retaliation claims also failed. The 14-month interval between her EEOC charge and termination was insufficient, standing alone, to establish causation, and the decisionmaker testified that she did not know about the charge. Assuming without deciding that Ozan could establish a prima facie case on her race, age, and sex discrimination claims, the court held that Lubrizol offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: a restructuring that eliminated Ozan’s position and a skills-based evaluation for new roles. Ozan did not produce evidence from which a jury could find that reason pretextual.
Key Takeaways
- An EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination does not constitute protected activity for an ADEA retaliation claim.
- A 14-month gap between protected activity and termination, without other causation evidence, did not support retaliation.
- General assertions of superior qualifications and unidentified comparators did not create a triable issue of pretext.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden employees face when challenging a restructuring-based termination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Even where a plaintiff is within multiple protected classes, the court required specific evidence undermining the employer’s stated selection criteria or showing that proposed comparators were similarly situated.
For employers, the ruling underscores the value of contemporaneous performance information, documented assessment criteria, and decisionmaker testimony connecting restructuring placements to job-related skills.