By: Scott D. Wilson
The Army defeated discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims by a Black instructor who sued over being investigated and disciplined after a student reported his personal business website offered appointments during Army work hours.
Carzell Middleton’s race bias claim fell short because he didn’t assert an adverse employment action, the US District Court for the Western District of Texas said Monday. It cited two recent Fifth Circuit decisions clarifying the requirements for pleading that element of a discrimination suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Hamilton v. Dallas County overturned longstanding circuit precedent that limited adverse actions to just “ultimate employment decisions,” like hiring and firing, and held workers only need to assert facts showing bias in their job terms or conditions, the court said. Hamilton set a broad test, declining to impose a minimum standard, but more than de minimis workplace issues are still required, the court said.
Under Hamilton and Harrison v. Brookhaven School District, job actions must exhibit both “adversity”—discrimination—and “materiality”—a non-de minimis injury—to violate Title VII. According to the court, the materiality requirement ensures the “relaxed definition of adversity will not ‘transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American workplace.’” (citing Hamilton).
Middleton’s suit didn’t meet that test because he failed to claim the reprimand letter the Army issued after the probe sparked by the student’s report carried any negative consequences. Missing were any allegations that Middleton was demoted, passed over for promotion, denied leave, paid less, or terminated, the court said.
Middleton also didn’t plead an adverse action under Title VII’s different test for retaliation claims, in which context a materially adverse action is any action that might deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity, said the court, citing Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. In this context, a court must look to whether the action affected job title, grade, hours, salary, or benefits, or caused a diminution in prestige or standing among coworkers. The court decided that the continued harassment from Middleton’s students, unwarranted criticism and scrutiny of his work by students and supervisors, and the written reprimand, which did not affect compensation, duties, or job title were not adverse employment actions under the standard for retaliation claims that is plausible on its face, citing Twombly.
Finally, the court dismissed any claim for hostile work environment that Middleton may have intended to bring, because his claim that students harassed him and the Army turned a blind eye lacked a link to race.
The case is Middleton v. Driscoll, 2025 WL 3634270, No. SA-25-CV-00560-JKP (W.D. Tex. 12/15/25)
BSW Labor and Employment Law Blog 