1. How would you have handled this matter if you were the manager?

2. What do you think of Keller’s remarks about Vaughn becoming the “black matriarch” of Texaco; “meeting behind closed doors,” and “excessive meetings with predominantly blacks?” What does it signify to you? What attitudes might it reflect that may be inappropriate in the workplace? What concern, if any, might be appropriate?

Issue: Whether the employer is racially discriminating when the employer doesn’t provide the employee with appropriate evaluation feedback which could have prevented her from being laid off. The employer’s decision not to do so was based on not wanting to have the employee file a discrimination suit.

Facts: During a retrenchment, a black female was terminated for poor performance. She alleged race discrimination due to which her employer intentionally did not to give her necessary feedback about her performance that would have helped her perform better and perhaps avoid dismissal.

Decision: The court upheld the employee’s claim. When an employer excludes black employees from improving their efficiency, it subverts the “broad overriding interest” of Title VII—“efficient and trusty workmanship assured through fair and racially neutral employment and personnel decisions.” Texaco has never stated any reason, other than that Vaughn was black for treating her as it did. Had Texaco treated Vaughn in a color-blind manner from 1985-1987, Vaughn may have been fired by April 1987 for unsatisfactory work; on the other hand, she might have sufficiently improved her performance so as not to be one of the two lowest ranked employees, thereby avoiding termination in April 1987.

Because Texaco’s behavior was race-motivated, Texaco had violated Title VII. Texaco limited or classified Vaughn in a way which would either “tend to deprive [her] of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect [her] status as an employee” in violation of the law.