IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30238

Summary Calendar

ISAAC JORDAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CLECO CORPORATION, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:11-CV-1701

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isaac Jordan challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment

to his employer Cleco on claims of failure to promote, discrimination, retaliation,

and hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Finding no

reason to alter the sound reasoning of the district court, we AFFIRM.

We review grants of summary judgment de novo, applying the same

standard as the district court. Kemp v. Holder, 610 F.3d 231, 234 (5th Cir.

2010). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 16, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2013
No. 13-30238

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 56. “‘[C]onclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated

assertions are inadequate to satisfy’ the nonmovant’s burden [on] summary

judgment.” Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 269 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Appellant first contests the district court’s ruling on a failure to promote

claim. Jordan alleges he was not selected in 2006 (three years before he filed

this suit) for a promotion from Fuel Handler to a Supervisor-Field Maintenance

position because of his race.1 This claim fails for multiple reasons. The

prescription period here under § 1981 is one year, Taylor v. Bunge Corp.,

775 F.2d 617, 618 (5th Cir. 1985), and Jordan offered the district court only

conclusory statements for an extension to four years under the 1991

Amendments. See generally Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369,

124 S. Ct. 1836 (2004). The same error is repeated on appeal. Moreover, under

the burden-shifting scheme set forth in McDonnell Douglas, Appellant failed to

show pretext after Cleco produced a non-discriminatory basis for its hiring

decision. See Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 316–17 (5th Cir.

2004) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct.

1817, 1824 (1973)).

Jordan next challenges adverse rulings on his racial discrimination and

retaliation claims. The district court held the discrimination claim—based on

a lack of training/opportunity provided—both prescribed and without merit. 

Because prescription was not challenged on appeal, that claim is waived. The

district court also rejected the related claim of retaliation due to a lack of

evidence. To state a retaliation case, a plaintiff must demonstrate he engaged

in a protected activity and suffered an adverse employment action as a result. 

1

Jordan also makes a brief statement concerning not being promoted in 2002 from Fuel

Handler to Senior Fuel Handler. The district court treated this claim as prescribed and that

holding is not appealed here. The Senior Fuel Handler argument is waived.

2

 Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2013
No. 13-30238

McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551, 556–57 (5th Cir. 2007). Jordan

argues the lack of training constituted an adverse employment action, but his

appellate brief does not indicate the protected activity for which he claims

retaliation. His deposition testimony indicates the activity was the filing of his

lawsuit. Because the alleged adverse employment action—lack of

training—occurred prior to the protected activity—filing of the lawsuit—there

is no evidence of a materially adverse employment consequence, and the

retaliation claim fails.

Appellant’s final argument is that he was subjected to a hostile work

environment. To succeed on this contention, a plaintiff must show (1) he is a

member of a protected group; (2) was subjected to unwelcome harassment;

(3) based on race; (4) that was so severe as to affect his employment; and (5) the

employer knew/should have known about the harassment and failed to take

prompt remedial action. Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 268 (5th Cir.

2002). Appellant correctly notes that an on-going violation may extend the

limitation window for considering evidence concerning the hostile work

environment. Jordan fails, however, to link the past activities with a present

violation against him and does not account for the affirmative actions taken by

Cleco to correct alleged violations. Anecdotal evidence of coarse racial jokes and

generally inappropriate behavior is offered, but the district court correctly held

that the isolated incidents failed to show an effect on his employment. See

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2283 (1998). 

While certain incidents could have given rise to a claim, the only interference

with work performance mentioned on appeal is the denial of opportunity for

advancement. This argument merely seeks to revive the previous claim and

there is no indication that it affected Jordan in the performance of his duties. 

Appellant cannot, therefore, make out a successful claim for a hostile work

environment. See EEOC v. WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2007).

3

 Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/16/2013
No. 13-30238

In sum, Appellant offers this court little more than untimely and

conclusory allegations unable to survive summary judgment. The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

4

 Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/16/2013