Alfred Ortiz, III v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20014
5th Cir.2015Background
- Ortiz, a long-time SAFD employee, challenges a mandatory Wellness Program for all uniformed employees.
- The Wellness Program provides a free job-related medical evaluation including tests and a chest X-ray every five years.
- If unfit, employees may be placed on Alternate Duty or Conditional Full Duty; overtime eligibility may be affected after sixty days on alternate duty.
- Ortiz refused to participate in the Wellness Program and sought constitutional/gina-related clarifications; he later faced alternate duty placements.
- Ortiz filed EEOC complaints alleging discrimination and retaliation; he sued after district court granted summary judgment for SAFD.
- The district court held there was no reversible error; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying plain-error review due to lack of objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| GINA discrimination claim viability | Ortiz asserts SAFD discriminated by mandating wellness testing under GINA. | SAFD contends no genetic information was requested or used to discriminate. | Claim rejected; no evidence of genetic information request or disparate treatment. |
| GINA retaliation for protected activity | Ortiz contends his GINA-covered complaints and grievances protected him from adverse actions. | SAFD argues actions were due to noncompliance with the wellness program, not protected activity. | No causal link shown; district court did not err in dismissal. |
| Title VII national origin discrimination | Ortiz claims Hispanic status caused adverse treatment compared to non-Hispanic coworkers. | SAFD offers legitimate nondiscriminatory goals for the wellness program and alternate duties. | No pretext shown; district court properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Fort Bend County, 765 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2014) (retaliation burden-shifting framework)
- Riley v. Napolitano, 537 F. App’x 391 (5th Cir. 2013) (protected activity requires specific statutory basis)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) (pretext analysis in Title VII context)
- Septimus v. Univ. of Hous., 399 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2005) (plain-error standard in review)
- Humana Health Plan, Inc. v. Nguyen, 785 F.3d 1023 (5th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment de novo standard)