Opinion ID: 4580326
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 2015 and 2016 LTIPs

Text: Mr. Romo likewise contends that Waste Connections breached the 2015 and 2016 LTIPs by refusing to pay. We agree with Waste Connections, 9 Case: 19-11008 Document: 00515613810 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/23/2020 No. 19-11008 however, that it is not required to pay because Mr. Romo was terminated for just cause. The 2015 and 2016 LTIPs have identical “just cause” clauses, which read: “Just Cause” has the meaning set out in the employment agreement of the Participant, if applicable, and otherwise means the Participant (i) willfully fails to perform his duties with the Corporation; (ii) commits theft, fraud, dishonesty or misconduct involving the property, business or affairs of the Corporation or any of its affiliates or in the performance of his/her duties: (iii) willfully breaches or fails to follow any material term of his or her employment agreement; (iv) is convicted of a crime which constitutes an indictable offence; or (v) engages in conduct which would be treated as cause by a court of competent jurisdiction in the jurisdiction in which the Participant is employed. Mr. Romo “concedes [that] accounting mistakes were made” but alleges that a genuine dispute as to a material fact exists because “the principal problem was brought on by Defendants’ intentional understaffing of Plaintiff’s [d]ivision by dumping the jobs of multiple people onto Plaintiff, their refusal to retain key personnel who could have avoided the errors, and mistakes by its own staff which were never punished.” However, he cites no evidence in support of these statements, which are therefore inadequate. See Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd. of San Antonio, Tex., 40 F.3d 698, 713 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts . . . will not prevent an award of summary judgment; the plaintiff [can]not rest on his allegations . . . to get to a jury without any significant 10 Case: 19-11008 Document: 00515613810 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/23/2020 No. 19-11008 probative evidence tending to support the complaint.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Mr. Romo further argues that “there is reason to doubt the [d]efendants’ stated reasons” for firing him, as “age related comments and a practice of firing older workers to be replaced by cheaper and younger employees casts doubt on the credibility of Defendants’ denial of benefits.” Mr. Romo cites no case law supporting his attempt to graft the pretext analysis from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act into a breach of contract claim. Moreover, the deposition testimony and affidavit he cites do not provide any support for his own conclusory statements. His argument therefore fails. See E.E.O.C. v. Exxon Shipping Co., 745 F.2d 967, 976 (5th Cir. 1984) (“[P]retext cannot be established by mere ‘conclusory statements’ of a plaintiff who feels he has been discriminated against.” (citation omitted)); Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps. 40 F.3d at 713 (“Conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts . . . will not prevent an award of summary judgment[.]”). Waste Connections has satisfied its burden and is entitled to summary judgment as to the LTIPs.