Source: cases/42usc2000e-2/f-supp-3d-382-1170-beck-v-figeac-aero.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_382/1170_01/index.html
Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person's national origin, which is where the person was born or where her ancestors came from.
Although Title VII's purpose is to erase disadvantage of minorities, so called "reverse discrimination" or discrimination against the majority is also prohibited.
Granted, the Court is unaware of any binding authority that has addressed reverse discrimination in the context of national origin discrimination claims; courts have allowed Title VII reverse discrimination claims in other contexts and the Court concludes that the same reasoning applies here.
A party claiming reverse discrimination must bring sufficient background evidence to show (1) the employer is abnormal in that it discriminates against the majority or (2) but for the plaintiff's status, the challenged actions would not have occurred.
Based on these facts, it is plausible that Figeac is an abnormal employer because it discriminates against the majority.
The conduct requires more than "run-of-the-mill boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior"-rather, severe discriminatory conduct must permeate the workplace.
This suggests the conduct complained of was ongoing rather than isolated incidences.
Beck has brought enough factual allegations to plausibly claim hostile work environment under Title VII.
A plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign due to conditions that were objectively intolerable created by the illegal discriminatory conduct of the employer.
These facts, assumed as true, might make a reasonable employee feel compelled to resign.
Beck has stated a plausible claim for constructive discharge.
A reasonable employee will find the action materially adverse when the action might dissuade the reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination claim.
The Court disagrees because probation is a negative disciplinary action an employer can take to dissuade an employee.
casedsl 1.2
# author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f-supp-3d/382/1170-01
name Beck v. Figeac Aero N. Am., Inc.
cite 382 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (2019)
court United States District Court for the District of Kansas
date 2019-06-27
url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_382/1170_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_382.jsonl sha1=d4bb3ad394ebdc0c62e9f5647b9fdfc2c36b4a5b chars=18745
opinion order : order by Melgren @0..18745 controlling
law 42usc2000e-2 (a)
role applied
posture civil; Title VII (and Kansas Act) "reverse" national-origin discrimination by an American employee of a French-managed firm: hostile work environment, retaliation, constructive discharge; employer's Rule 12(b)(6) motion denied on all three, granted only on a separate failure-to-conciliate claim (D. Kan.)
result claimant-won
? other: result is recorded for the Title VII discrimination/retaliation theories, all of which survive the motion to dismiss; the only claim dismissed ("failure to conciliate", 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5) is not a 2000e-2 theory. If the convention is per-motion, this is `mixed`.
theory reverse-national-origin-coverage : whether Title VII protects Americans against national-origin discrimination at all
theory background-circumstances : whether the majority-group plaintiff pleaded the "abnormal employer" background circumstances
element employer : satisfied [pleaded]
route private-employer
pattern aerospace-parts-company-with-french-manager
fact @803..865 [supports] | Beck worked as a buyer for Figeac from January to April, 2017.
gloss Not contested.
element protected-class : satisfied [law]
theory reverse-national-origin-coverage
route national-origin
pattern american-national-origin
rule @5250..5397 | Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person's national origin, which is where the person was born or where her ancestors came from.
rule @5398..5560 | Although Title VII's purpose is to erase disadvantage of minorities, so called "reverse discrimination" or discrimination against the majority is also prohibited.
held @5561..5854 | Granted, the Court is unaware of any binding authority that has addressed reverse discrimination in the context of national origin discrimination claims; courts have allowed Title VII reverse discrimination claims in other contexts and the Court concludes that the same reasoning applies here.
element protected-class : satisfied [pleaded]
theory background-circumstances
route majority-plaintiff-showing
pattern hr-acknowledged-and-tolerated-manager's-anti-american-conduct
fact @1713..1874 [supports] | According to Beck, the HR representative "acknowledged the harassment and the discrimination towards Americans" but told Beck "that's just the way [Benaoum] is."
fact @1481..1605 [cuts-against absent] | Beck never specifies how many of the employees under Benaoum's supervision were American, French, or some other nationality.
rule @5855..6106 | A party claiming reverse discrimination must bring sufficient background evidence to show (1) the employer is abnormal in that it discriminates against the majority or (2) but for the plaintiff's status, the challenged actions would not have occurred.
held @6565..6685 | Based on these facts, it is plausible that Figeac is an abnormal employer because it discriminates against the majority.
element hostile-environment : satisfied [pleaded]
route severe-or-pervasive
pattern manager's-repeated-anti-american-slurs-and-table-striking-outbursts-over-three-months
fact @866..1139 [supports] | Beck, who is American, alleges that during that time her manager, Hocine Benaoum, who is French, referred to some employees as "stupid Americans," referred to American employees as "f*cking stupid," and referred to one employee as "nothing but a God D*mned American buyer."
fact @1140..1363 [supports] | Beck alleges that Benaoum displayed violent tendencies toward American employees but not French employees, stating that Benaoum would regularly "strike tables, walls, and other things while screaming at American employees."
rule @7460..7615 | The conduct requires more than "run-of-the-mill boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior"-rather, severe discriminatory conduct must permeate the workplace.
held @8363..8447 | This suggests the conduct complained of was ongoing rather than isolated incidences.
held @7832..7936 | Beck has brought enough factual allegations to plausibly claim hostile work environment under Title VII.
gloss The court notes the frequency of the conduct is unclear from the complaint but infers it from HR's acknowledgment; the conduct need not have been directed at the plaintiff.
element adverse-action : satisfied [pleaded]
route constructive-discharge
pattern resigned-same-day-as-retaliatory-probation-after-manager's-abuse
fact @2018..2105 [supports] | In response to being placed on probation, Beck quit her job with Figeac later that day.
fact @11779..11837 [supports] | Benaoum allegedly displayed physically violent tendencies.
rule @10932..11122 | A plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign due to conditions that were objectively intolerable created by the illegal discriminatory conduct of the employer.
held @11954..12042 | These facts, assumed as true, might make a reasonable employee feel compelled to resign.
held @11564..11625 | Beck has stated a plausible claim for constructive discharge.
gloss Whether a reasonable employee would actually have resigned is expressly left for later in the litigation.
element retaliation : satisfied [pleaded]
route materially-adverse-action
pattern probation-imposed-after-repeated-hr-complaints
fact @1606..1712 [supports] | Beck complained to the company's Human Resources Department ("HR") multiple times about Benaoum's conduct.
fact @1875..1933 [supports] | Subsequently, on April 7, Figeac placed Beck on probation.
rule @9596..9760 | A reasonable employee will find the action materially adverse when the action might dissuade the reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination claim.
held @10472..10589 | The Court disagrees because probation is a negative disciplinary action an employer can take to dissuade an employee.
gloss Only protected opposition and material adversity were contested; causation was not argued. The HR complaints were also held to be protected opposition.