CA1: no discriminatory animus at Coke

Thompson v. Coca-Cola Company, No. 07-2107.  A guy went to Jamaica to have dental work done.  When he got back her was fired for not finding someone to cover his shifts.  There seems to be some discrimination going on at Coke.  The First says that all the racist comments were made by non-decision-makers, so the only things that matter are whether the “Separation Review Committee acted with discriminatory animus.”    It also says that “Stray workplace remarks” don’t meet any burden of showing pretext or animus.  And, under state law, there wasn’t really a pervasively abusive environment.

The First seems to be using more boiler-plate than usual to explain the standard of review in summary judgment cases.  What gives?