Court Opinion

ID: 9947837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 19:01:25.612236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:37.804201
License: Public Domain

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

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                FILED
                                                                          March 5, 2024
                                    No. 23-30556                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                Clerk

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.
Case: 23-30556        Document: 56-1       Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                 No. 23-30556

                                       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

                                       2
Case: 23-30556        Document: 56-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                  No. 23-30556

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 pre-
loaders 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,

                                       3
 Case: 23-30556          Document: 56-1           Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                       No. 23-30556

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.

                                             4
Case: 23-30556        Document: 56-1       Page: 5    Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                 No. 23-30556

       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

                                       5
Case: 23-30556        Document: 56-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                 No. 23-30556

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

                                       6
Case: 23-30556        Document: 56-1        Page: 7   Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                   No. 23-30556

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

                                        7
 Case: 23-30556          Document: 56-1          Page: 8      Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                       No. 23-30556

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.

                                             8
Case: 23-30556        Document: 56-1        Page: 9    Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                  No. 23-30556

       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

                                        9
Case: 23-30556       Document: 56-1        Page: 10   Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                 No. 23-30556

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.”

                                      10
Case: 23-30556         Document: 56-1        Page: 11   Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                   No. 23-30556

         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.

                                        11