Court Opinion

ID: 9942432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 01:00:51.475316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:04.946616
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10556           Document: 80-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/20/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-10556
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                               February 20, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
Chad R. Harris,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Amazon.com, Incorporated,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:22-CV-2279
                  ______________________________

Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Plaintiff-Appellant, Chad R. Harris, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s judgment granting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed
by Defendant-Appellee, Amazon.Com, Incorporated (“Amazon”), seeking
dismissal of Harris’s Title VII claims. For the reasons set forth below, we
VACATE and REMAND.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10556        Document: 80-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/20/2024

                                  No. 23-10556

                             I. BACKGROUND
       In his complaint, Harris alleged the following: On November 28,
2021, he was hired to work in Amazon’s Coppell, Texas, facility as a
“packer.” The job description for this position stated that the duties
included, inter alia, packaging, labeling, and inspecting orders to be delivered.
However, within weeks of starting, Amazon assigned Harris other duties,
which became “more labor intensive.” Harris ultimately was “moved into
‘Tote Running,’ which is considered by most if not every packer, as the
hardest physical job in the packing area,” and “[t]his assignment was only
given to men.”
       According to Harris, “most of the time during peak season,” two tote
runners were assigned to approximately seventy to seventy-five packers. A
packer would stack twelve totes, and then the tote runner would move each
stack of twelve totes to the end of the line. Tote runners would move the
stacks by loading them on to a cart, which could hold eight stacks. Once
loaded, the cart weighed roughly 500 pounds. Tote runners would then push
the cart about one-eighth of a mile, remove and put the totes in a standing
area, and then push the empty cart (which weighed about 120 pounds) back
to the beginning of the line to repeat. Tote runners would do this for ten
hours a day. Harris contends that “measured by sports watches, the daily
distance traveled per day was consistently between twelve and twenty
miles.” Harris “reported his concerns that only men pushed totes.” The
response from his managers was that tote running was “too hard for
women.”
       When Harris on occasion asked to be relieved of tote running due to
physical exhaustion, management would initially agree, but then never follow
through. On April 13, 2022, Harris told his manager that “his knees
experienced pain/agony” and that he did not want to push the cart on the

                                       2
Case: 23-10556        Document: 80-1        Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/20/2024

                                  No. 23-10556

longer route. Harris was told to go home or ask for accommodations, but
Harris “did not wish to report any prior pains in [his] knees.”
       On July 27, 2022, Harris filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Harris alleged that Amazon was
discriminating against him on the basis of his sex because female packers were
not required to be tote runners like male packers. On August 15, 2022, Harris
was sent to train in another area of the building called “stow.” Harris alleged
that stow was a less desirable job assignment and that he was sent there in
direct retaliation for filing his EEOC complaint. The position is less desirable
because Harris no longer has the ability to receive “voluntary time off” and
his meal breaks are now at 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M., instead of 11:00 A.M.
and 3:00 P.M. He also alleges that he has physical pain and suffering in his
knee area and in both legs. He has pain in his knees while walking up
stairwells and cramps in the same area at night while asleep. Prior to his tote
runner job, he did not have these pains, and the pain has persisted even after
being removed from tote running.
       Harris alleges as his first cause of action, discrimination in violation of
Section 2000e-2 of the Civil Rights Act. He asserts that he has been denied
the same terms and conditions of employment available to women by placing
him in a substantially more physically demanding position. Harris alleges
that he has suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, depression,
humiliation, loss of self-esteem, and emotional pain and suffering, as well as
physical pain and suffering. For his second cause of action, Harris alleges
that Amazon unlawfully retaliated against him for filing an EEOC complaint
when they transferred him to stow.
       In response, Amazon filed an answer as well as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Amazon argued that Harris’s first cause
of action—his discrimination claim—should be dismissed because he failed

                                        3
Case: 23-10556            Document: 80-1          Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/20/2024

                                        No. 23-10556

to allege that he suffered an “adverse employment action,” which is a
required element of a discrimination claim. Amazon similarly argued that
Harris’s second cause of action—his retaliation claim—should also be
dismissed for lack of a “materially adverse” employment action. The
magistrate judge noted that under this Court’s jurisprudence, “adverse
employment action” meant an “ultimate employment decision” such as
“hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, granting leave, and compensating.”
The magistrate judge therefore recommended that Harris’s complaint be
dismissed. Overruling Harris’s objections, the district court adopted the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Harris’s complaint.
Harris filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                   II. DISCUSSION
       On appeal, Harris argues that under this Court’s recent en banc
decision in Hamilton v. Dallas County, 1 his allegations support the required
element of adverse employment action to state a sex-discrimination and
retaliation claim. In Hamilton, which we decided after the district court’s
decision in this case, we overturned our precedent requiring a plaintiff to
allege discrimination with respect to an “ultimate employment decision” in
order to state a discrimination claim. We held that “a plaintiff need only
show that [he or] she was discriminated against, because of a protected
characteristic, which respect to hiring, firing, compensation, or the ‘terms,
conditions or privileges of employment’—just as the statute says.” 2 We
subsequently applied Hamilton in another recent decision, Harrison v.
Brookhaven School District, and held that to state a discrimination claim, a

       _____________________
       1
           79 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc).
       2
           Id. at 506 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)).

                                              4
Case: 23-10556            Document: 80-1          Page: 5          Date Filed: 02/20/2024

                                        No. 23-10556

plaintiff “must allege not only an adverse action, but something more than a
de minimis harm borne of that action.” 3
       Because the district court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss
without the benefit of intervening Fifth Circuit authority, we VACATE and
REMAND to allow the district court, in the first instance, to address
Amazon’s motion to dismiss in light of Hamilton and Harrison.

       _____________________
       3
           82 F.4th 427, 431 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).

                                              5