Court Opinion

ID: 9961748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 18:00:51.21741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:46.097641
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40611           Document: 52-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/19/2024

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

                                  ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               April 19, 2024
                                   No. 23-40611                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                 ____________

David Edward Ellis,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Schneider National Carriers, Incorporated,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:21-CV-25
                  ______________________________

Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Plaintiff-Appellant, David Edward Ellis, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his claims under
Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Defendant-Appellee,
Schneider National Carriers, Inc. (“Schneider”). We AFFIRM.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40611        Document: 52-1         Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/19/2024

                                   No. 23-40611

                                        I.
       Schneider employed Ellis as a long-haul trucker for approximately five
months from August 2019 until January 2020. His duties included picking
up and delivering freight, subject to the supervision of his fleet manager,
Jorge Bustamante, and his dispatcher, Victoria Solares. In October 2019,
Ellis sent an email to a manager complaining about Solares because she
required that he communicate with her by telephone instead of through a
messaging application program, which Ellis preferred.              Ellis further
suggested that Solares required him to communicate in that way because
Solares was interested in him romantically. Later in the month, Ellis sent an
email to four other colleagues complaining about Solares. The email included
inappropriate sexual references.
       On November 22, 2019, Schneider placed Ellis on a performance
improvement plan (“PIP”) due to his inappropriate communications with
his colleagues and supervisors. Ellis was told that he needed to adhere to
Schneider’s policy of respect for all fellow employees and to “work on
effective performance of the core competency of communication.” Ellis was
informed that fellow employees who received his email found it offensive due
to inappropriate sexual references. Ellis signed the PIP and did not dispute
the information in it. The PIP advised Ellis that he could be terminated for
engaging in similar conduct in the future. However, Ellis did not cease
sending offensive emails. On December 24, 2019, and January 13, 2020, Ellis
sent offensive emails to Bustamante and Solares. On January 14, 2020,
Schneider terminated Ellis’s employment.
       In March 2021, Ellis, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued
Schneider, as well as Bustamante and Solares. Ellis asserted claims of
disability, age, race, and religious discrimination, as well as retaliation, under
Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. Bustamente, Solares, and Schneider

                                        2
Case: 23-40611         Document: 52-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/19/2024

                                  No. 23-40611

moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.     The district court granted Bustamante and Solares’s motion,
dismissing them as defendants. The district court granted Schneider’s
motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all but Ellis’s claims under
Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation for requesting a religious
accommodation.
         Schneider thereafter moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of Ellis’s remaining claims. The district court granted Schneider’s motion,
and Ellis filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                       II.
         In its Rule 12(b)(6) and summary-judgment rulings, the district court
provided a thorough and detailed analysis of each of Ellis’s claims, explaining
the elements he needed to establish and why he failed to state a claim or
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to overcome summary
judgment. Specifically, the court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6): (1) Ellis’s
ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) his Title VII
racial discrimination claims because he failed to allege that any adverse
employment decisions were differentially applied to him; (3) three of his
Title VII retaliation claims because he did not allege that he ever
communicated his complaints to his managers nor did he plausibly allege the
required causal connection; and (4) his ADEA claim because he failed to
allege that any adverse employment decisions were differentially applied to
him. As to his claims under Title VII for religious discrimination, the district
court granted summary judgment in favor of Schneider, determining that
Ellis’s disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims failed because
Ellis produced no evidence satisfying the prima facie requirements. The
court additionally determined that Ellis’s Title VII retaliation claims could
not survive summary judgment because there was no evidence that

                                        3
 Case: 23-40611            Document: 52-1          Page: 4       Date Filed: 04/19/2024

                                         No. 23-40611

Schneider’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for terminating him—his
repeated offensive emails to his colleagues and supervisors—was merely
pretext for unlawful retaliation.
        Ellis’s near incoherent appellate brief makes no argument about any
of the claims dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). As to
his religious discrimination and retaliation claims, Ellis does not challenge the
district court’s determination that Ellis produced no evidence sufficient to
survive summary judgment. 1
        Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, pro se parties must still
brief the issues in order to preserve them for appellate consideration. 2
Because Ellis fails to identify any error in the district court’s judgment
dismissing his claims, it “is the same as if he had not appealed that
judgment.” 3
        Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

        _____________________
        1
           Throughout his brief, Ellis includes vile and offensive language such that the
Court, on its own motion, would be warranted in striking his brief. Ellis is warned that
if any future filings in this Court contain similar language, sanctions will be imposed.
        2
            See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
        3
            Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

                                               4