Frazier v. Hy-Vee

Background

Kenneth Frazier, a 62-year-old African American man, worked for Hy-Vee from September 2015 through January 2020. He worked in several departments and sought additional hours and promotions. He alleged that Hy-Vee discriminated against him based on race and age when it denied or failed to provide several promotions.

Frazier brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the federal Equal Pay Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Hy-Vee moved for summary judgment, asking the court to enter judgment without a trial because, in its view, the evidence could not support Frazier’s claims.

At oral argument, Hy-Vee stopped relying on its timeliness argument concerning the complaint. Frazier conceded Counts III and VI and all retaliation claims, so the court did not analyze those claims. The court also did not consider statements attributed to a declaration that Hy-Vee had cited but had not submitted as an exhibit.

Timeliness

The court treated each failure-to-promote allegation as a separate discriminatory act, meaning each act had its own filing deadline. It held that Frazier’s Title VII, age-discrimination, and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims based on events in December 2015 were time-barred. The court found that his 2017 and 2019 claims were timely.

Discrimination claims

The court held that Title VII does not prohibit age discrimination. It therefore granted summary judgment on the age-discrimination claims included in Count I.

Because Frazier presented no direct evidence of discrimination, the court applied the burden-shifting method commonly used in employment-discrimination cases. Under that method, a plaintiff first must present enough evidence to support an initial discrimination claim. If the plaintiff does so, the employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. The plaintiff then may attempt to show that reason was a pretext, meaning a cover for discrimination.

For the alleged March 2017 promotion denial, the court held that Frazier had not shown that a promotion position existed. The court reached the same conclusion regarding his alleged denial of a promotion to sushi chef in 2017. It therefore found that Frazier failed to establish the initial requirements for those claims.

For the July 2019 assistant-manager position in the meat department, Frazier applied online, Hy-Vee conceded that he was qualified, and Hy-Vee gave the position to Julius Herd, whom Frazier alleged was Latino. The court held that Frazier had met the initial requirements for a race-discrimination claim because Herd was not shown to be in the same racial group as Frazier. The court also held that Frazier did not need to prove at this stage that he was more qualified than Herd.

Hy-Vee did not provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for selecting someone else for the July 2019 position. The court therefore held that a reasonable juror could find that Hy-Vee discriminated against Frazier based on race, making summary judgment inappropriate on that claim.

Disposition

The court denied Hy-Vee’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Frazier’s race-based failure-to-promote claims concerning the July 2019 incident in Counts I, IV, and V. The court granted Hy-Vee’s motion with respect to all remaining claims in the amended complaint.