George v. Honeywell Intl Inc

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 24, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 04-30885
_____________________
LEROY GEORGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:03-CV-189-B-M3
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
We have carefully studied the record and the briefs and have
heard oral argument in this case. We acknowledge that, when all of
the fine points of the evidence are analyzed, this case is very
close as to whether George has demonstrated a triable case of
retaliation and race discrimination concerning the two promotions
at issue. We further acknowledge that Honeywell has demonstrated
racial sensitivity in response to some of George’s complaints.
Still, our careful consideration of the entire record in this case

-- 1 of 2 --

2
leaves us with the impression that the case is inappropriate for
summary judgment.
In sum, George has introduced evidence that he was a well-
known and inveterate protestor of racial discrimination at the
plant; that some of the decision-makers at the Honeywell plant had
demonstrated racial bias; that the plant manager disapproved of
George’s complaints of race discrimination; that the knowledge of
George’s earlier complaints can be imputed to the committee; and
that George was clearly qualified for the back-up operator
position. This evidence leads us to conclude that this case should
be tried to a fact-finder. Of course, the fact-finder may reject
the evidence to which we have referred because there is evidence
adduced by Honeywell that tends to refute much of it. But on the
other hand, the jury may accept such evidence and make the nexus
that George has proved his claims of unlawful denial of the
promotions at issue. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to Honeywell and REMAND this case for
further proceedings.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --