Court Opinion

ID: 9915570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 19:00:44.62903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:12.501238
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50075        Document: 00517022934             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024

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

                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                     January 5, 2024
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                       No. 23-50075                                        Clerk
                                     ____________

   Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   U.S. Drug Mart, Incorporated, doing business as Fabens
   Pharmacy,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CV-232
                     ______________________________

   Before Southwick, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         In this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination case,
   the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleges hostile
   work environment and constructive discharge claims against U.S. Drug Mart
   on behalf of David Calzada, a young former pharmacy technician who suffers
   from asthma. Calzada left his job with the pharmacy after one of his

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50075     Document: 00517022934           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/05/2024

                                    No. 23-50075

   supervisors, Steve Mosher, criticized him for asking to wear a mask during
   the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court dismissed the
   EEOC’s claims via summary judgment as foreclosed by our precedent. We
   AFFIRM the district court’s summary judgment for U.S. Drug Mart.
          Calzada began working for U.S. Drug Mart as a pharmacy technician
   in August 2018 when he was eighteen years old. The pharmacy, which does
   business as Fabens Pharmacy, was run by Steve Mosher, the lead pharmacist,
   and his wife Ana Navarrette, the store manager. The first eighteen months
   of Calzada’s employment with U.S. Drug Mart transpired without incident.
   But on March 26, 2020, as the pandemic took hold of the country, Calzada
   showed up to work wearing a facemask. After Navarrette told him that mask-
   wearing violated the pharmacy’s current policy, he left for the day.
          After a few days of apparent miscommunication and missed work,
   Calzada, Navarrette, and Mosher met to discuss the matter on March 30.
   Calzada recorded the meeting via his cell phone. At the outset of the
   meeting, as well as later in the discussion, Navarrette offered Calzada a mask
   (and gloves) and explained that U.S. Drug Mart’s policies had been updated
   by then to allow wearing them. However, during the meeting, Mosher grew
   frustrated by Calzada’s “attitude” and repeatedly belittled him, at one point
   calling Calzada “a disrespectful, stupid little kid.” The exchange brought
   Calzada to tears, though he returned to work for the remainder of the
   morning. After he left for his lunch break, he briefly reentered the store to
   pick up some belongings, then left again and never came back.
          Calzada filed a charge of discrimination against U.S. Drug Mart with
   the EEOC, and the EEOC brought this action on Calzada’s behalf. The
   district court granted summary judgment in favor of U.S. Drug Mart, and the
   EEOC appealed.

                                         2
Case: 23-50075        Document: 00517022934             Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/05/2024

                                         No. 23-50075

           We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
   Saketkoo v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 31 F.4th 990, 997 (5th Cir. 2022).
   Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that 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). We “view[] all facts and draw[] all
   inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Thompson v.
   Microsoft Corp., 2 F.4th 460, 466 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Harville v. City of
   Houston, Miss., 945 F.3d 870, 874 (5th Cir. 2019)).
           To establish a hostile work environment claim 1 under the ADA, a
   plaintiff “must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group, (2) was subject
   to unwelcome harassment (3) based on his disability, (4) which affected a
   term, condition, or privilege of employment, and (5) [his employer] knew or
   should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, remedial
   action.” Thompson, 2 F.4th at 470–71 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Flowers v. S.
   Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 235–36 (5th Cir. 2001)). The fifth
   element disappears “[w]here a harassment claim arises out of a supervisor’s
   conduct.” EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 731 F.3d 444, 453 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (en banc). 2
           The district court determined that the EEOC’s disability-based
   harassment claim failed the fourth factor because Mosher’s harsh words were
   not “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s

           _____________________
           1
             The ADA case law at times refers to hostile work environments and at other times
   refers to disability-based harassment. See, e.g., Thompson, 2 F.4th at 471 (hostile work
   environment); Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 235 (5th Cir. 2001)
   (disability-based harassment). These terms refer to the same ADA cause of action.
           2
              Boh Brothers Construction is a Title VII case where sexual harassment, not
   disability discrimination, caused the alleged hostile work environment. 731 F.3d at 449.
   However, this court has previously “conclude[d] that the language of Title VII and the
   ADA dictates a consistent reading of the two statutes.” Flowers, 247 F.3d at 233.

                                               3
Case: 23-50075       Document: 00517022934         Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/05/2024

                                    No. 23-50075

   employment.” Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada, 591 F.3d 761, 771 (5th Cir. 2009)
   (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). This decision
   mirrors our opinions in Saketkoo v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund
   and Septimus v. University of Houston, which both involved verbal abuse more
   intense than Mosher’s conduct yet did not present cognizable claims for
   sexual harassment. Saketkoo, 31 F.4th at 1003–04; Septimus, 399 F.3d 601,
   612 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Mosher’s conduct, while certainly brusque, falls well short of “this
   circuit’s fairly high standard for severe or pervasive conduct.” Flowers, 247
   F.3d at 236. And it is even further removed from the kind of “egregious” or
   “extremely serious” conduct necessary to sustain a hostile work
   environment claim based on a single instance of discrimination. Wantou v.
   Wal-Mart Stores Tex., L.L.C., 23 F.4th 422, 433 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations
   omitted), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 745 (2023), reh’g denied, 143 S. Ct. 1049
   (2023). So, while we disagree with the district court’s dicta that the
   “allegations raise a question of fact ill-suited for resolution at the summary
   judgment stage,” we agree that the EEOC’s hostile work environment claim
   fails as a matter of law.
          “Constructive discharge occurs when an employee has quit [his] job
   under circumstances that are treated as an involuntary termination of
   employment.” Haley v. All. Compressor LLC, 391 F.3d 644, 649 (5th Cir.
   2004) (citing Young v. Southwestern Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 509 F.2d 140, 144 (5th
   Cir. 1975)). A valid hostile work environment claim is a “lesser included
   component” of the “graver” constructive discharge claim. Pa. State Police v.
   Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 149 (2004) (emphasis original). Indeed, this circuit has
   emphasized that “[c]onstructive discharge requires a greater degree of
   harassment than that required by a hostile environment claim.” Brown v.
   Kinney Shoe Corp., 237 F.3d 556, 566 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Benningfield v.

                                         4
Case: 23-50075      Document: 00517022934           Page: 5   Date Filed: 01/05/2024

                                     No. 23-50075

   City of Houston, 157 F.3d 369, 378 (5th Cir. 1998)). Thus, the EEOC’s
   constructive discharge claim necessarily fails as well. Again, we affirm the
   district court for correctly granting summary judgment, irrespective of its
   suggestion that there is any fact issue on this point.
                                                                 AFFIRMED.

                                          5