United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-30556 

____________ 

John Cole, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Quality Carriers, Incorporated, a subsidiary of CSX 

Corporation, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 5:21-CV-3968 

______________________________ 

Before Jones, Dennis, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

In this Title VII case, John Cole appeals the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of Quality Carriers. He argues that the district 

court erroneously dismissed his discrimination claim and that he met his 

burden to show Quality Carrier’s reasons for his termination were pretext for 

retaliation. For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the district court. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 5, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

2 

I 

In September 2018, John Cole began working as a driver at Quality 

Carrier’s Fort Worth terminal. In February 2019, he was transferred to 

Quality Carriers’ Bossier City terminal because of overstaffing in Fort 

Worth. Cole alleges that he was one of five drivers chosen for the schedule 

of a “pre-loader,” which is a local driver who returns to his home base at the 

end of every shift. 

 In June 2019, Cole alleges he spoke to his terminal manager, John 

Beasley, to request a transfer to a different driving schedule because he was 

not making enough money under the pre-loader schedule. Beasley allegedly 

asked him to remain on the pre-loader schedule because “he was dependable 

and always on time” and that a pay raise was imminent for pre-loaders. Two 

weeks later, however, Cole alleges that Beasley removed him from the 

position because he was “always late” and replaced Cole, a black man, with 

a white driver. 

 Shortly after, Cole filed a complaint with human resources, claiming 

his removal from the pre-loader schedule and replacement with a white 

driver was discriminatory. The Director of Human Resources investigated, 

determined that Cole was late on at least one occasion, but the records were 

inconclusive regarding his timeliness on other occasions at issue, so Cole was 

reinstated as a pre-loader in July 2019. 

Once he was reinstated, Cole then alleged that someone at Quality 

Carriers gave him a “fake” wash ticket, or a certificate of cleanliness, 

resulting in his delivery being rejected and a verbal warning from 

management. Cole again spoke to human resources, who determined that a 

white scheduler was responsible for creating the wash ticket, but that there 

was no evidence of racial discrimination or retaliation because the wash ticket 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

3 

process was an outdated carry-over from a different company that was 

inconsistent with Quality Carriers’ processes and procedures. 

Cole claims that because of his claim of discrimination, human 

resources required Quality Carriers to change its process for scheduling preloaders and conducting internal investigations. Instead of complying, Cole 

alleges that management eliminated all pre-loader positions on paper, while 

hand-picking employees that they would allow to do pre-loader work. Quality 

Carriers, however, says this was not retaliation but that the position was 

eliminated in February 2020 because it was no longer economically practical 

to have a dedicated group of pre-loader drivers and that the decision had 

impacted all pre-loader drivers, black and white. 

Cole also alleges that after the elimination of the pre-loader position, 

schedulers began assigning black drivers to work that was more difficult, 

unpredictable, and with longer drive times than their white counterparts. He 

claims he was scheduled for drives that management knew he would be 

forced to decline, including loads transporting hazardous material like jet fuel 

and kerosene. Cole alleges that he did not have requisite training or 

equipment to transport hazardous materials and that unsafe working 

conditions forced him to refuse these loads. Quality Carriers counters that 

none of the loads required a respirator or any other safety equipment, but 

even if they did, Cole possessed the requisite training and equipment to 

complete these drives. 

Cole was terminated in May 2020. He timely filed a charge with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Louisiana 

Commission on Human Rights. On August 17, 2021, Cole requested a notice 

of right to sue from the EEOC, and then filed this suit in federal court on 

November 15, 2021, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

4 

codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII), and the Louisiana Employment 

Discrimination Law § 23:332.1

 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 to review a final decision of the district court. 

II 

 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Wallace v. 

Performance Contractors, Inc., 57 F.4th 209, 217 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Lewis 

v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 870 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2017)). Summary 

judgment is proper “if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to 

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A fact is ‘material’ if resolving it one way or 

another might make one outcome of the lawsuit more or less likely; it need 

not be dispositive.” Wallace, 57 F.4th at 217 (citing Sossamon v. Lone Star 

State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316, 326 (5th Cir. 2009)). “A genuine dispute over 

the fact exists if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a 

verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Id. (quoting McCarty v. Hillstone Rest. 

Grp., Inc., 864 F.3d 354, 357-58 (5th Cir. 2017)). We must view the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the non-movant and resolve factual 

controversies in his favor. Id. 

III 

A 

_____________________ 

1

 Employment discrimination claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, 

and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law § 23:332 are analyzed under the same 

analytical framework as Title VII claims. See Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 448 (5th 

Cir. 2002); Baker v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 278 F. App’x 322, 327 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Likewise, retaliation cases are analyzed under the same Title VII framework. See Raggs v. 

Miss. Power & Light Co., 278 F.3d 463, 468 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we analyze both 

issues under Title VII’s framework. 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

5 

 In a case such as this, where Cole relies on circumstantial evidence of 

discrimination to support his claims, the three-step McDonnell Douglas

framework applies. Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212, 219-20 (5th 

Cir. 2001); see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). 

Under this framework, a plaintiff is entitled to a presumption of 

discrimination if he meets the “minimal initial burden” of establishing a 

prima facie case. Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2012) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This burden is “not 

onerous.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Once a prima 

facie case is established, the burden shifts to the employer, who must show a 

legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. Id. If 

the employer meets its burden, the burden returns to the plaintiff to show 

that the employer’s given reasons are pretextual by a showing of intentional 

discrimination. Id. 

A prima facie discrimination claim requires a showing that the plaintiff 

“(1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at 

issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment action by the 

employer; and (4) was replaced by someone outside [his or her] protected 

group or was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees 

outside the protected group.” Harrison v. Brookhaven Sch. Dist., 82 F.4th 

427, 429 (5th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation and citation omitted). As the 

district court found, the discriminatory conduct here occurred when Cole, a 

black driver, was temporarily removed from the pre-loader schedule. But the 

district court concluded that Cole had failed to establish a prima facie 

showing of discrimination as to the fourth element. 

 For the purposes of this appeal, we assume arguendo that Cole has 

established a prima facie case of race discrimination. Thus, we will discuss 

whether he has sufficiently proven that Quality Carriers’ stated reasons for 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

6 

removing him from the pre-loader schedule were pretext for discriminatory 

motives. 

 Quality Carriers put forth evidence that it temporarily removed Cole 

from the pre-loader schedule because of performance issues, including 

several occasions between June 6, 2019, and June 16, 2019, where Cole was 

late in picking up a scheduled load. It further claimed that the temporary 

replacement by a white employee was permitted because that employee 

needed to be close to home to care for his wife. This evidence sufficiently 

shows a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. This is so because we must 

review the defendant’s burden of production with “no credibility 

assessment” and a defendant only fails to meet is burden of production if it 

“has failed to introduce evidence which, taken as true, would permit the 

conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse 

action.” St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993) (emphasis 

in original). 

 It then becomes Cole’s burden to show that Quality Carriers’ stated 

reasons are pretext for discrimination. This requires Cole to prove both that 

the stated reasons are false, and that discrimination was the true reason. Id. 

at 515. Cole must present “substantial evidence” that Quality Carriers’ 

proffered reason for his temporary removal is pretext for racial 

discrimination. Watkins v. Tregre, 997 F.3d 275, 283 (5th Cir. 2021). 

“Evidence is substantial if it is of such quality and weight that reasonable and 

fair-minded [triers of fact] in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach 

different conclusions.” Owens v. Circassia Pharm., Inc., 33 F.4th 814, 826 (5th 

Cir. 2022). 

 Before this court, Cole argues that the district court’s conclusion that 

he failed to show pretext applied the incorrect legal standard. In Cole’s view, 

he satisfied his burden for three reasons. First, he presented evidence that 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

7 

the timeliness issues were not to be believed, that he was removed without 

notice shortly after the pay increased for pre-loaders by a white man, and that 

Beasley’s deposition testimony contradicted itself in parts. Next, he points 

to demographics at Quality Carriers, including that 95 percent of its 

workforce is black, so the odds that a white man would replace him are 

unlikely. Finally, he notes that the pre-loading position was eliminated 

shortly after he was reinstated. 

 Cole claims that Human Resources “found evidence that any lateness 

was likely caused by other workers at the terminal and was not Plaintiff’s 

fault.” However, the portions of the record Cole cites to do not support his 

argument. During the Director of Human Resources deposition, she 

indicated that “[w]e determined that [Cole] was, in fact, late on at least one 

of the instances. [Cole] claimed that the other instances – this is purely from 

his recollection – were based more on other people not having performed 

things they should have . . . .” She further stated that “[t]here were other 

instances where he was late, which we confirmed” but that the compromise 

solution was to move forward and “agree [Cole was] going to be on time from 

here on out.” 

 As to his replacement by a white individual, Cole alleges that it is 

untrue that this employee was given the position because he needed to be 

home for his wife, arguing that this assertion is “undermined by the fact that 

Plaintiff’s own requests to be put on the pre-load schedule for his own family 

reasons were not accommodated.” But according to the record Cole has 

cited, Cole indicated that he would be available to pick up more shifts because 

his partner went on vacation without him. This does not undermine Quality 

Carriers’ assertion that Cole’s white counterpart was temporarily chosen to 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

8 

replace him to be closer to home to care for his wife.2 During Beasley’s 

deposition, he indicated that Quality Carriers “do[es] its best to assist drivers 

that were having family issues, bad health in the family, situation where a 

parent or a sibling or a spouse was sick, we tried to keep them closer to 

home.” Moreover, as the district court found, Cole’s arguments are entirely 

speculative and not based on his own personal knowledge. We have held that 

“self-serving evidence”—including depositions, declarations, and 

affidavits—is sufficient evidence if it is based on personal knowledge and that 

the facts presented are “particularized, not vague or conclusory.” Guzman 

v. Allstate, 18 F.4th 157, 161 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)(4); Kariuki v. Tarango, 709 F.3d 495, 505 (5th Cir. 2013). 

 As to his third claim—that the pre-loading position was eliminated 

shortly after he was reinstated—the pre-loading position was eliminated in 

February 2020. But Cole was reinstated as a pre-loader in July 2019. We find 

that this temporal distance, spanning a period of seven to eight months, 

undercuts Cole’s argument that the position was eliminated “shortly” after 

he was reinstated. Compare Garcia v. Prof’l Cont. Servs., Inc., 938 F.3d 236, 

243 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that two and a half months between a protected 

act and adverse employment action is sufficiently close in time to 

demonstrate causal connection), with Lyons v. Katy Ind. Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 

298, 305 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that five months is not close enough to 

show a causal connection). 

_____________________ 

2

 Although Cole claimed that it was not his white counterpart’s wife, but his 

stepfather who required additional care despite being deceased, this information was 

provided to him by his coworkers. We agree with the district court that this evidence is not 

based on Cole’s personal knowledge and therefore provides no substantial evidence. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Moreover, Cole does not further this argument on appeal. 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

9 

 Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Cole has not 

provided substantial evidence to undermine Quality Carriers’ legitimate 

reasons for any adverse employment actions. 

B

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) 

they participated in a protected activity; (2) their employer took an adverse 

employment action against them; and (3) a causal connection exists between 

the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Banks v. E. Baton 

Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 320 F.3d 570, 575 (5th Cir. 2003). Here, the retaliatory 

conduct Cole points to is the elimination of the pre-loader position, the 

schedulers sabotaging his work multiple times between the time he 

complained about discrimination until the time the pre-loader position was 

eliminated, and his ultimate termination in May 2020. The district court 

concluded Cole had established a prima facie case of retaliation. Again, for 

purposes of this appeal, we will assume arguendo that Cole has established a 

prima facie case. 

 If the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the 

defendant to provide a “legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the 

employment action.” Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, LLC, 736 F.3d 396, 400 

(5th Cir. 2013). After this showing, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s 

proffered legitimate reasons for its actions are pretext by providing evidence 

that the adverse employment action would not have occurred “but for” the 

protected activity or discrimination. Garcia, 938 F.3d at 243-44 (citations 

omitted). 

 Turning to Quality Carriers proffered legitimate, non-retaliatory 

reasons for its conduct, it claims first that it discontinued the pre-loader 

position for all drivers because it became economically infeasible to maintain 

it. It also argues that Cole has no evidence to show the schedulers were even 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

10 

aware of his discrimination claim, so had no reason to sabotage him. Finally, 

it claims that the wash ticket incident was not unique to Cole, because it was 

the result of a faulty paperwork process inherited from another entity that 

impacted all the drivers. These reasons are sufficient to carry Quality 

Carriers’ burden to show a nonretaliatory reason for its conduct. 

 It then becomes Cole’s burden to show these proffered reasons are 

pretext for discrimination. Royal, 736 F.3d at 400. As noted, Cole must 

prove but-for causation, which requires “proof that the unlawful retaliation 

would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or 

actions of the employer.” Univ. of Tex. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 360 

(2013). Although “temporal proximity alone is insufficient to prove but for 

causation,” Strong v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., LLC, 482 F.3d 802, 808 (5th Cir. 

2007), “[t]he combination of suspicious timing with other significant 

evidence of pretext can be sufficient to survive summary judgment.” Garcia, 

938 F.3d at 244 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

 On appeal, Cole argues that he has satisfied his burden for two 

reasons. First, he alleges that he was “subjected to a consistent pattern of 

discrimination and retaliation.” Next, he claims that he “enumerated safety 

trainings that he was not provided that rendered his transport of jet fuel 

unsafe under Defendant’s policy.” In response, Quality Carriers’ asserts that 

there is “no causal connection” between his June 2019 complaint and the 

elimination of the pre-loader position in February 2020. Pointing to the 

record evidence, it notes that it discontinued the pre-loader position for all

drivers because it was no longer economically feasible to maintain it. Finally, 

it notes that there is no causal connection between Cole’s discrimination 

complaint in June 2019 and his termination in May 2020 because the record 

shows that he “consistently refused to accept loads within his driver 

category.” 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-30556 

11 

 First, the evidence in the record supports Quality Carriers’ assertion 

that the pre-loader position was eliminated for all employees, black and 

white, due to economic reasons. 

As to the consistent pattern of discrimination, Cole only points to one 

occasion involving the wash ticket. As previously explained, the wash ticket 

incident was an issue with many drivers because of a faulty paperwork 

process. Moreover, Cole himself testified that he did not have specific 

knowledge that any of the other dispatchers responsible for scheduling knew 

of his complaints. 

 As to the safety trainings and equipment, Cole offers this evidence to 

show that his termination was retaliatory. Quality Carriers asserts that Cole 

was terminated for his consistent refusal to accept loads within his driver 

category. The record evidence supports this, as it shows that Cole was 

“pick[ing] and choos[ing] what he will and will not run according to what the 

loads pay.” Further, he turned down several feedstock loads without 

explanation, and continues to provide no explanation in his reply brief. 

Quality Carriers’ Vice President of Safety explained that its drivers had no 

real exposure to hazardous materials in the course of their duties. Further, 

Cole was unable to identify which safety trainings he needed to complete the 

loads. 

 Because of the lack of evidence supporting his claims, Cole is unable 

to establish but-for causation tying his reporting of discrimination to the 

elimination of the pre-loader position, the wash ticket incident, or his 

ultimate termination in May 2020. 

IV 

 Even viewed in the light most favorable to Cole, he is unable to satisfy 

his burden to prove pretext. Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the 

district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-30556 Document: 56-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/05/2024