Court Opinion

ID: 9899993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 01:00:33.801225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.002503
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50328         Document: 00516973134               Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

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

                                      ____________                                          FILED
                                                                                     November 17, 2023
                                        No. 23-50328                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
                                      ____________

   Richard Nelson,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                              versus

   Texas Department of Transportation,

                                                                      Defendant—Appellee,

                      ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:22-CV-34
                     ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Elrod, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         This is an appeal from a district court’s grant of summary judgment
   to an employer in an age discrimination lawsuit. Because Plaintiff failed to
   create a genuine dispute of material fact on the element of pretext, we
   AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50328      Document: 00516973134          Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                    No. 23-50328

               I. Factual & Procedural Background
          Plaintiff Richard Nelson began working for the Texas Department of
   Transportation (“Department”) in May 2015 as Division Director of the
   Toll Operations Division. On November 29, 2020, Plaintiff was informed
   that his position would be terminated effective November 30, 2020, because
   he apparently engaged in conduct inconsistent with the Department’s
   policies on workplace harassment and retaliation. With respect to workplace
   harassment, the Department received complaints from its employees that
   Plaintiff displayed favoritism and made comments in a misogynistic and
   racist manner. With respect to retaliation, the Department received more
   complaints from employees that Plaintiff retaliated against employees who
   he suspected of reporting his alleged instances of workplace harassment. At
   the time of his termination, Plaintiff was 67 years old and within one year of
   retirement eligibility. Plaintiff claims he was wrongfully terminated by the
   Department based on his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in
   Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and the Texas Labor Code. At the close
   of discovery, the Department filed a motion for summary judgment arguing
   that Plaintiff could not create a genuine dispute of fact that the Department’s
   proffered reasons for termination were a pretext for age discrimination. The
   district court agreed and entered summary judgment. This appeal followed.
                          II. Standard of Review
          “We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo,
   applying the same standard as the district court.” Jackson v. Cal-Western
   Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Threadgill v.
   Prudential Sec. Grp., Inc., 145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998)). That means
   “[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
   party[,] . . . avoid credibility determinations and weighing of the evidence[,]”
   and only affirm a grant summary judgment when “there are no genuine issues

                                              2
Case: 23-50328        Document: 00516973134             Page: 3      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                         No. 23-50328

   of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
   law.” Id. (citations omitted).
                                   III. Discussion
           Under the ADEA, it is unlawful for an employer to “discharge any
   individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual . . . because of
   such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). In a circumstantial evidence
   case such as this one, we generally apply the McDonnell Douglas framework
   to ADEA claims—an approach that both parties before us embrace. 1 Jackson,
   602 F.3d at 378. First, the employee must establish a prima facie case of age
   discrimination; second, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a
   legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision; and third,
   the burden shifts back to the employee to present evidence that the
   employer’s reason was a pretext for age discrimination. See Allen v. U.S.
   Postal Serv., 63 F.4th 292, 300-01 (5th Cir. 2023). Only the third step of the
   McDonell Douglas framework—pretext—is at issue here.
           Plaintiff attempts to create a genuine issue of material fact as to
   whether the Department’s reasons for termination were pretext for age
   discrimination by denying that he engaged in any workplace harassment and
   by denying that he retaliated against other Department employees. But even
   if we assumed that the allegations of misogyny, racism, and retaliation were
   false, Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the Department did not
   reasonably believe the allegations and did not in good faith act on them.
   Under our caselaw, “[i]n cases [like this one where] an employer discharges
   an employee based on the complaint of another employee, the issue is not the

           _____________________
           1
           The parties do not challenge the district court’s finding that “age discrimination
   claims under the Texas Labor Code are analyzed through the same burden-shifting
   framework as ADEA claims,” so we likewise address both claims at the same time.

                                                   3
Case: 23-50328       Document: 00516973134            Page: 4      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                       No. 23-50328

   truth or falsity of the allegations but ‘whether the employer reasonably
   believed the employee’s allegation and acted on it in good faith.’” Jackson,
   602 F.3d at 379 (quoting Waggoner v. City of Garland, 987 F.2d 1160, 1165
   (5th Cir. 1993)). In the absence of any such evidence, 2 we AFFIRM the
   judgment of the district court.

          _____________________
          2
             Plaintiff also takes issue with the district court’s finding that Plaintiff’s
   declaration “includes inadmissible hearsay.” We agree with the district court that even
   when considered, the declaration does not raise “a genuine issue of fact” that the
   Department “impermissibly relied on the investigation results.”

                                                 4