Court Opinion

ID: 9909595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 19:00:40.821311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:03.731264
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30383        Document: 00516999886             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/13/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 23-30383                            December 13, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Robert Broussard,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Stabil Drill Specialties, L.L.C.,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 6:22-CV-577
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff–Appellant Robert Broussard alleges that his former
   employer, Defendant–Appellee Stabil Drill Specialties, L.L.C. (“Stabil”),
   demoted and then terminated him in violation of the Age Discrimination in
   Employment Act (“ADEA”). The district court granted Stabil’s motion for
   summary judgment. Broussard appeals, contending that the district court

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30383        Document: 00516999886             Page: 2      Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                         No. 23-30383

   erred by: (1) applying an unnecessarily restrictive causation standard within
   its prima facie analysis, and (2) discounting evidence of pretext. We review a
   grant of summary judgment de novo, “applying the same standards as the
   trial court.” Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216, 221 (5th Cir.
   2011).
            Under the ADEA, it is “unlawful for an employer . . . to fail or refuse
   to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any
   individual . . . because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). The
   familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to claims
   under the ADEA. Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 957, 957 n.4
   (5th Cir. 1993) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)).
   Under that framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of
   discrimination by showing that “(1) he was discharged; (2) he was qualified
   for the position; (3) he was within the protected class at the time of discharge;
   and (4) he was either i) replaced by someone outside the protected class, ii)
   replaced by someone younger, or iii) otherwise discharged because of his
   age.” Goudeau v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (citation omitted). 1 The burden then shifts to the employer to “articulate a
   legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.” Id. Finally, the
   burden returns to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate by a preponderance of
   the evidence that “the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not
   its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Id. (quoting Squyres
   v. Heico Cos., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 224, 231 (5th Cir. 2015)). Broussard alleges
   errors at steps one and three.

            _____________________
            1
              This test also applies to adverse employment actions other than discharge. See,
   e.g., Moss v. BMS Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917, 921 (5th Cir. 2010).

                                               2
Case: 23-30383      Document: 00516999886          Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                    No. 23-30383

          Broussard first complains that the district court applied an
   unnecessarily narrow standard of causation in concluding that he had not
   established a prima facie case of discrimination. He contends that the court
   erroneously required him to allege that he was replaced by someone younger,
   failing to consider the possibility that he was “otherwise discharged because
   of his age.” See id. However, as we have explained, “the precise elements of
   [a prima facie] showing will vary depending on the circumstances.” Reed v.
   Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). And,
   while the district court might have omitted the “otherwise discharged”
   language from its memorandum ruling, it did consider whether Broussard
   had established causation in this manner, evaluating each instance of
   discipline for discriminatory motive. We conclude that there was no error in
   the district court’s analysis of Broussard’s prima facie case.
          Broussard contends secondly that the district court erred at step three
   of the McDonnell Douglas test by discounting evidence of pretext. Broussard
   asserts that Stabil offered inconsistent reasons for the demotion and
   dismissal, which is strong evidence that those reasons are mere pretext for
   discrimination. Broussard is correct that an employer’s contradictory or
   implausible proffered reasons for its actions may establish pretextual
   motives, but there is no evidence in the record of such inconsistencies. See
   Caldwell v. KHOU-TV, 850 F.3d 237, 242 (5th Cir. 2017). Stabil has
   repeatedly explained that Broussard was demoted because of a demonstrated
   lack of management skills and was terminated because of a company-wide
   reduction in force. Broussard believes that a deposition in which Stabil stated
   that he was terminated because of his “performance history” establishes
   inconsistency and thus pretext. But that statement is entirely consistent with
   Stabil’s reduction-in-force rationale, as the termination decisions during that
   process included a consideration of an employee’s prior discipline for poor
   performance. Even if Broussard had established a prima facie case of

                                          3
Case: 23-30383      Document: 00516999886        Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                  No. 23-30383

   discrimination under the ADEA, he has failed to meet his burden to
   demonstrate that Stabil’s asserted reasons for demotion and termination
   were pretextual. See Evans v. City of Hous., 246 F.3d 344, 350–51 (5th Cir.
   2001).
            The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                       4