![](\"http:\/\/squarehr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/appeals-court-upholds-firing-of-trainee-who-failed-to-complete-training-program.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/squarehr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/appeals-court-upholds-firing-of-trainee-who-failed-to-complete-training-program-1.jpg\")
<\/div>\n?Takeaway:<\/strong> Employers should ensure access to training opportunities and the training itself are provided on a nondiscriminatory basis.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ?A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a trainee who did not complete basic operator training and therefore could not satisfactorily perform the job for which he was hired. Opportunities to access and complete the training were provided in a nondiscriminatory manner, according to the court.<\/p>\n In 2017, Exxon Mobil hired the plaintiff and nine others as operators-in-training to work at a polypropylene chemical plant. Under the training program, a trainee must first pass basic operator training\u2014six weeks of classroom instruction followed by written tests. <\/p>\n If the trainee passes basic training, they move on to field training, where they get hands-on experience while shadowing plant staff, track their progress with a “qualification card” and complete reading assignments. After about four months, trainees must pass a test known as a “final walkthrough,” which consists of a series of questions about operator safety. If a trainee passes the walkthrough, they become an operator.<\/p>\n During training, the plaintiff, a Black man, “failed 14 tests\u2014the most in his class and the maximum allowed\u2014and scored poorly overall,” the appeals court said. Still, he passed and started field training, along with a white classmate. With four months to go until his walkthrough, the plaintiff was assigned a handbook and a trainer. Each day, he had time to go through his book and shadow the unit’s operators, including his trainer. <\/p>\n Before his final walkthrough, Exxon Mobil let the trainee work overtime to finish the handbook and pushed the date of his test back. The plaintiff failed his walkthrough. The company gave the plaintiff two additional weeks of study and the opportunity to retake the test. The plaintiff failed again, and Exxon Mobil fired him.<\/p>\n The plaintiff sued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana alleging race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Generally, the plaintiff maintained that Exxon Mobil inadequately trained him because of his race. As evidence, the plaintiff pointed to his fellow trainee\u2014a white man\u2014who passed the final walkthrough even though he allegedly “had no greater knowledge or ability or education.” The plaintiff argued that he only received two days of training on material that should have taken two weeks to teach, while his white classmate’s qualification card showed about 15 days of training on the same subjects. The plaintiff alleged that his supervisors were biased, didn’t properly train him and “intentionally failed” him because of his race.<\/p>\n The district court found the plaintiff failed to show his alleged inadequate training amounted to an adverse employment action, that Exxon Mobil discriminated against him in the walkthrough or that he was qualified for the operator position, so the court ruled in the company’s favor. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Again, the district court ruled against the plaintiff. <\/p>\n In the plaintiff’s appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he said the district court: 1) ignored genuine factual disputes and 2) erroneously ruled that he waived his inadequate training theory. The appellate court affirmed the district court ruling, but on different grounds.<\/p>\n The appellate court found the plaintiff’s argument wasn’t waived. The plaintiff didn’t rely on any direct evidence of discrimination, so the appellate court said he had to show he suffered some adverse employment action. The court discussed whether access to or provision of inadequate training may constitute an adverse employment action, and it agreed with the plaintiff that it does.<\/p>\n The court then found that Exxon Mobil gave the plaintiff “access to the same robust training as his classmate.” The court said the plaintiff’s “inadequate training theory fails under the weight of the undisputed facts,” as the plaintiff received “ample training opportunities\u2014which he took\u2014while at Exxon’s chemical plant.” Therefore, the plaintiff “cannot genuinely allege Exxon failed to train him.”<\/p>\n Rahman v. Exxon Mobil Corp.<\/em>, 5th Cir., No. 21-30669 (Jan. 10, 2023), petition for rehearing denied<\/em> (Feb. 7, 2023).<\/p>\n D.M. Fera is a freelance writer in the Washington, D.C., area.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n