Title of Case: Vaughn v. Edel 918 F.2d 517 (5^th Cir. 1990

Procedural History: Federal Court

Facts: Emma Vaughn, a black female attorney, became an associate contract analyst in Texaco's Land Development in August of 1979. Vaughn was the highest ranked contract analyst in the department. In a memorandum concerning this discussion, Keller wrote that he had told Vaughn that he had been told that Vaughn's productivity "was very low"; that he "had become aware for some time of the excessive visiting by predominantly blacks in her office behind closed doors"; that "the visiting had direct

Issue: When direct credible evidence of employer discrimination exists, employer can counter direct evidence, such as statement or written document showing discriminatory motive on its face , "only by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have acted as the did without the regard to the race."

Rule: The court found that there is no significant difference between the three tests established in previous judicial decisions: the "common law agency" test (Darden), the "economic realities" test (Adcock), and the "common law hybrid" test (Lutcher).

Analysis: Although Vaughn's race may not have directly motivated the 1987 to fire her, race did play a part in Vaughn's employment relationship with Texaco from 1985-1987. Texaco's treatment of Vaughn was not colorblind during the period. In neither criticizing Vaughn when her work was unsatisfactory nor counselling her how to improve, Texaco did not afford Vaughn the same opportunity o improve her performance and perhaps her relative ranking.

Conclusion: Because Texaco's behavior was race-motivated, Texaco has violated Title VII. Texaco limited or classified Vaughn in a way which would either "tend to deprive of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect status as an employee" in violation of the law.

1. From anHuman Resource Management(not employee) perspective, what would be some important takeaways from this case?