怀特诉阿门图姆服务公司案

Bobby White, a Black male, sued his former employer Amentum Services, Inc. for race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. White worked as an Instrument & Control Technician at Amentum's facility in Anniston, Alabama. He alleged that Amentum refused to promote him on three occasions—in 2019, 2021, and 2022—because of his race, instead promoting white candidates Stacey Martin, Brandon Liles, and Tim Connell. Amentum moved for summary judgment, arguing that in each instance it selected more qualified candidates regardless of race. The court granted Amentum's motion on all counts on July 22, 2025.

The court granted Amentum's motion for summary judgment on all counts. Judge Corey L. Maze found that Amentum had demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for each promotion decision: Martin had decades of automation experience; Liles held the required bachelor's degree in engineering which White lacked; and Connell was selected as the best qualified candidate. The court concluded that White failed to present sufficient evidence that these reasons were pretextual or that race was the determining factor in the promotion decisions.

Whether Amentum Services, Inc. discriminated against Bobby White on the basis of race by refusing to promote him on three separate occasions, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The central dispute centered on whether Amentum's proffered reasons for promoting other candidates—that they were more qualified—were pretextual or whether White could establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

The case reinforces the high bar plaintiffs face in employment discrimination suits at the summary judgment stage, particularly when employers can articulate specific, qualification-based reasons for promotion decisions. It underscores that federal courts will not infer discrimination merely from a plaintiff's membership in a protected class and the selection of a candidate outside that class, absent evidence that the employer's stated reasons are pretextual. The decision also highlights the continuing importance of Title VII and Section 1981 as frameworks for addressing workplace race discrimination, while demonstrating the challenges plaintiffs encounter in proving discriminatory intent.