A Louisiana former employee went to court, claiming he was forced to quit his job because of extreme racial harassment. He described graffiti, a noose, racist name-calling, and he said he feared for his life when other workers dropped heavy metal parts near him. But when a federal magistrate judge learned about his other lawsuit, she was very displeased.

What happened. “Barton” is an African American welder who joined Oil States Skagit Smatco but quit after 3 months. The district judge began hearing his case in May 2010, and in July, Oil States learned of the plaintiff’s earlier lawsuit in 2009: He had testified that because of an auto accident, he suffered severe and ongoing back pain, which caused him to quit his job with Oil States.

The company asked the judge to dismiss Barton’s harassment suit with prejudice, meaning he could never file the charge again. If the judge felt that was too harsh, she could assess Barton for Oil States’ legal expenses or find him guilty of fraud. Barton definitely thought dismissal was too harsh; he argued that his back injury and racial harassment needn’t cancel each other out and weren’t inconsistent with each other. True he couldn’t claim constructive discharge—being forced out of the job. But he should be able, he asserted, to charge harassment.

The district judge rejected the other two of Oil States’ suggestions and all of Barton’s. She felt strongly that he had committed perjury and shouldn’t be allowed to go forward with any part of his lawsuit. So she dismissed the suit. Barton appealed to the 5th Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

What the court said. Appellate judges believed that a strong message should be sent to other potential plaintiffs that the two-lawsuits/two-stories scenario Barton used is unacceptable. To allow parts of his discrimination suit to go forward, they said, would effectively remove all punishment for his punishment—and send the wrong message to others. And, at the outset, the courts had waived the normal filing fees for Barton’s suit, because he pleaded poverty. So judges decided that ordering him to pay Oil States’ legal expenses would be fruitless. So they affirmed the district judge’s ruling and dismissed his discrimination suit with prejudice. Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, No. 10-31257 (12/6/11).

Point to remember: You have to feel for Oil States in this case; there was just no way it could win. Yes, Barton was discredited, and basically thrown out of court, but the company had to foot the bills for an expensive defense anyway.