08-04-2026
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that an employer’s discrepancies and failure to document during its investigation provided material questions of fact for a jury.
Brenda Brenyah worked as a nurse for Corpus Christi Medical Center (CMCC). She claimed that CMCC nurses discriminated against her and other Black nurses. Brenyah alleged that these nurses mocked her accent and her food, commented that Black people “play the race card,” subjected her to racial slurs, and stated a preference for Filipino employees. She also observed second-hand harassment of her Black coworker, who was told to stay twelve feet away due to his race and was reassigned because a patient did not want to be treated by a Black nurse. Brenyah said these types of incidents occurred almost every shift, and she complained about the harassing conduct to several supervisors. She alleged that CMCC conducted an ineffective investigation, and the offensive behavior continued. (Brenyah made additional claims in her lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on those claims.)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Brenyah’s race discrimination claims on appeal and reversed the summary judgment. It analyzed two elements of her prima facie case. First, whether Brenyah alleged sufficient facts for a jury to find the race harassment was “sufficiently severe or pervasive” to alter the conditions of her employment and “create an abusive environment.” The Court held that Brenyah’s evidence on the discriminatory harassment she experienced and that which she observed, combined with the frequency, was sufficient for a jury to potentially conclude that it was severe or pervasive and created an abusive working environment.
Second, Brenyah presented sufficient facts to establish that CMCC should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and remedial action. CMCC argued that it investigated promptly, including interviewing employees and then coaching the nurses who made the comments. However, Brenyah pointed to discrepancies in the supervisors’ testimony about the investigation and their interview records, CCMC’s failure to produce an investigation file or notes in discovery, the fact that a Black employee was not interviewed (even though the supervisor claimed they were), the omission of statements confirming Brenyah’s allegations in the investigation summary, the refusal to allow Brenyah and her co-worker to review their statements, and the failure to create interview summaries. Finally, the harassing behavior continued after the investigation.
Takeaways: This case reinforces the importance of conducting thorough investigations. Employers should interview relevant employees and document the information gathered during those interviews.