Court Opinion

ID: 9906117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 01:00:38.838607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:06.419196
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10277         Document: 00516985681             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/30/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                        No. 23-10277
                                      ____________                                    FILED
                                                                              November 30, 2023
   Andrew Nguyen,                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   AT&T,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:21-CV-913
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Andrew Nguyen, pro se, appeals a summary judgment denying his
   claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. In a careful and
   thorough ten-page opinion, the district judge concluded that Nguyen had
   failed to create a genuine issue of material fact to show that he was treated
   differently because of race. The court further found that Nguyen’s suspen-
   sion and termination were for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10277      Document: 00516985681           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/30/2023

                                     No. 23-10277

           The district court’s detailed explanation included, for example, the
   following:
           Plaintiff complains of several instances that he believes show
           that he was treated differently than other non-Asian employ-
           ees. Those include: being assigned older work vehicles with
           various issues and not being given a “brand new” vehicle to
           drive, failure to receive a bucket truck that he requested after
           returning from leave (even though the doctor had released him
           with no restrictions for returning to work), being questioned by
           his supervisor as to the need for certain requested tools/-
           equipment, assignment of a parking slot for his personal vehi-
           cle, and disciplinary treatment for minor safety infractions
           when inspected at work sites. As argued by Defendant, none
           of these complained-of issues were “adverse employment ac-
           tions, nor are they timely under Title VII because they are
           outside the 300-day period for bringing claims in a charge of
           discrimination.
           The court also noted that Nguyen was suspended “after making per-
   ceived threats of workplace violence to a supervisor.” And the court con-
   cluded that, regarding discrimination, “Plaintiff has merely proffered his
   subjective belief that it must have been because of his race.”
           There is no error. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essen-
   tially for the reasons given by the district court in its order of February 27,
   2023.

                                              2