Edward Dane Brassette worked for Tulane University for more than fifteen years, rising from a carpenter and painter to the role of Paint Supervisor in Tulane’s Campus Services and Facilities Department. In that role, Brassette supervised a team of painters and had authority to issue disciplinary “Staff Counseling Reports” for violations of workplace rules. Starting in 2018, Brassette disciplined four Black painters on his team, including issuing write-ups and engaging in heated verbal interactions.
In December 2022, one of these painters, Leroy Clanton, filed a complaint with Tulane’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), alleging that Brassette subjected him and other Black painters to race discrimination by yelling at them, excessively monitoring their work, and disciplining them more harshly than non-Black employees. Three days later, Brassette filed his own complaint with OIE, asserting that his disciplinary actions were not being taken seriously because he was White and older, and that this constituted race and age discrimination against him.
Tulane initiated an internal investigation into Clanton’s complaint. The OIE investigator interviewed Brassette, Clanton, other Black painters, and non-Black employees who worked on the crew. Several witnesses reported that Brassette routinely yelled at Black painters, argued with them openly, and treated them more harshly than Hispanic painters. A Hispanic painter told the investigator that Brassette frequently clashed with Black painters but did not have similar issues with Hispanic employees. The investigator also noted that Brassette became hostile and yelled during her interview of him. Based on the interviews and credibility assessments, the investigator concluded that it was more likely than not that Brassette treated African-American employees differently and that race was a contributing factor in his conduct, in violation of Tulane’s Equal Opportunity and Anti-Discrimination policies.
Tulane terminated Brassette’s employment in April 2023, citing the findings of the OIE investigation. Brassette subsequently filed suit, alleging that Tulane terminated him because of his race (White), his age (59), and in retaliation for his internal complaint of discrimination. He brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions. Tulane moved for summary judgment on all claims.
The Court granted Tulane’s motion in full. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the Court first found that Brassette could establish a prima facie case of race and age discrimination—he was a member of a protected class, qualified for the job, suffered an adverse employment act when his employment was terminated, and was replaced by someone outside of his protected class. Therefore, the burden then shifted to Tulane to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Tulane met that burden by pointing to the OIE investigation, which concluded that Brassette engaged in race-based differential treatment and violated university policy.
The Court then examined whether Brassette had produced evidence of pretext. It concluded he had not. Although Brassette disagreed with the investigator’s conclusions and offered alternative explanations for his disciplinary actions, the Court explained that the issue was not whether Tulane’s decision was correct, but whether Tulane reasonably believed the findings of its investigation and acted on that belief. The record showed that Tulane relied on interviews with multiple witnesses, credibility assessments, and documented findings. Brassette presented no evidence that Tulane did not genuinely rely on the investigation or that race motivated the termination decision. Disagreement with the outcome of an investigation, the Court held, does not establish pretext.
The Court likewise rejected Brassette’s age discrimination claim. Brassette pointed to comments by coworkers referring to him as “old school” and to the fact that a younger employee eventually replaced him. The Court found these allegations insufficient because the comments were not tied to the decision-makers and were not shown to have influenced the termination decision. There was no evidence that age played any role in Tulane’s reliance on the OIE investigation.
Finally, the Court dismissed Brassette’s retaliation claim. Although the Court acknowledged that Brassette’s internal complaint qualified as protected activity under Title VII, it found no causal connection between that complaint and his termination. Nearly four months passed between Brassette’s complaint and his termination, which the Court held was too long, standing alone, to establish causation. Brassette also failed to produce evidence that the ultimate decision-maker knew of his complaint or that anyone with retaliatory animus influenced the decision. Because Tulane terminated Brassette based on the OIE investigation rather than his complaint, the retaliation claim failed as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment for Tulane on all claims.
Brassette v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund (E.D.La. Dec. 1, 2025) 2025 LX 540694.
Note: For schools, this case highlights the importance of prompt, impartial investigations and clear documentation linking disciplinary decisions to investigative conclusions rather than to protected characteristics or complaints.