Lee v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
574 F.3d 253 (2009)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Marcus Lee (plaintiff), a Black man, worked as an engineer for Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (KCS) (defendant). In 2004, Lee failed to stop a train at a stop signal while reversing in a Louisiana railyard. Lee’s error did not cause any harm. However, Lee had committed other moving violations six and 18 months prior, both resulting in suspensions. Consequently, Lee’s manager fired him. Kathy Alexander, KCS’s director of labor relations, could grant leniency and reinstate employees but determined leniency was not warranted. Lee sued KCS for race-based employment discrimination violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Lee claimed that he would have been granted leniency but for his race. In support, Lee provided examples of White employees who he claimed were similarly situated but received leniency from Alexander. James McClure was granted leniency after being fired for dishonesty and misuse of company property. Greggory Bickham was granted leniency after being fired for failing to stop at a stop signal in a rural location. Bickham had two prior moving violations with suspensions within a similar timeframe to Lee. However, the district court concluded that neither McClure nor Bickham was sufficiently similarly situated to Lee, and Lee had therefore failed to make a prima facie case of racial discrimination. It granted summary judgment in KCS’s favor. Lee appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wiener, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 913,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

