John Peters worked as a trooper for the Louisiana State Police (LSP) for 27 years. In October 2020, Colonel Lamar Davis, who is black, was appointed Superintendent of the LSP. After taking office, Davis publicly announced that he would “purge the culture problem of racist policing in Troop F.” Peters was the commander of Troop F. Davis reassigned Peters from Troop F to another division of the LSP. Although Peters suffered no loss in rank, he alleged that this move was “a demotion in title and prestige and a barrier to all future promotions.”
Peters was investigated by internal affairs over allegations that he failed to review a traffic stop video documenting use of force, instead allowing his subordinates to do the review. He claimed that another troop leader, who is black, similarly allowed lower-ranking troopers to review videos documenting use of force but was not disciplined. Peters also alleged that LSP began surveilling him and his family to catch him in the act of a policy violation.
Within a few months, Peters learned he was the subject of a second internal investigation and was accused by the local news of covering up misconduct in a traffic arrest resulting in the death of a black suspect. The information underlying the news report was leaked from internal LSP emails. Peters complained to internal affairs about the leak, which declined to investigate. Peters then resigned “to protect himself and his family.”
Peters sued the LSP under Title VII, alleging that LSP compelled him to resign because he was white. LSP moved to dismiss Peters’ case, arguing that he failed to allege a plausible discrimination claim. The Court agreed.
First, the Court laid out the legal standard, explaining that Peters was required to allege an adverse employment action. For a constructive discharge to qualify as an adverse employment action “a plaintiff must establish that working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.” Furthermore, “a constructive discharge requires a greater degree of harassment than that required by a hostile work environment claim.” In evaluating the degree of harassment, the Court considered whether Peters alleged (1) demotion; (2) reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibilities; (4) reassignment to menial or degrading work;(5) reassignment to work under a younger supervisor; (6) badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee’s resignation; or (7) offers of early retirement or continued employment on terms less favorable than the employee’s former status. The Court quickly dismissed most of these considerations as irrelevant and focused its analysis on (6).
Upon review, Peters’ allegations of badgering, harassment, or humiliation did not rise to the level of an adverse action under Title VII. The problem that the Court identified was that even if Peters alleged badgering or harassment on LSP’s part, he did not allege that the harassment was “calculated to encourage resignation.” Peters did not allege that Davis initiated internal affairs investigations with the goal of pushing Peters to resign; same for the internal LSP leak leading to the news report. As a result, he failed to state a race discrimination claim, because he did not allege that LSP’s harassment rose to the level of a constructive discharge, and therefore, Peters suffered no adverse employment action under Title VII.
Peters v. Louisiana, CIV. ACTION NO. 3:23-00453, 2024 WL 290001 (W.D. La., 2024).