Alvarez v. Blanchard Refining Company LLC
3:18-cv-00268
| S.D. Tex. | Jan 15, 2020Background
- Amex Electric Services, Inc. (Amex) and Blanchard Refining Co., LLC entered a five-year Major Service Contract (MSC) in April 2014 under which Blanchard could issue job orders and Amex could accept them; neither party was obligated to order or accept work.
- During a February 2015 United Steelworkers strike, Blanchard demobilized multiple contractors (including Amex), used in-house employees and a larger contractor (IES) to cover electrical work, and later continued that consolidation after the strike ended.
- Amex (and its president/majority shareholder Abel Alvarez, a Hispanic male) received no job orders after the strike; Amex and Alvarez sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (claiming interference with right to make/enforce contracts) and state-law fraud.
- Blanchard moved for summary judgment, presenting business reasons for consolidating work with internal staff and IES; Amex and Alvarez pointed to selective statements and incidents they claim show discrimination and misrepresentations.
- The magistrate judge assumed, for purposes of analysis, that Amex made a prima facie Section 1981 showing but found Blanchard offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and that Amex failed to show pretext.
- The court also found Alvarez’s fraud claim deficient: the alleged 2016 assurance about the MSC was not false as a matter of law, and a second alleged misrepresentation lacked evidentiary support and failed to meet Rule 9(b) particularity requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amex can prevail on a §1981 claim for being excluded from work after the strike | Amex: Blanchard’s refusal to issue job orders was race-motivated interference with contractual rights | Blanchard: Business decision to demobilize contractors and consolidate work with internal staff and a larger contractor (IES) was legitimate, nondiscriminatory | Court: Granted summary judgment for Blanchard — Blanchard met its burden and Amex offered no evidence of pretext |
| Whether disparaging comments and isolated incidents establish racial animus | Amex: Comments/ incidents show discriminatory treatment tied to Hispanic identity | Blanchard: Comments are unrelated to race and do not show causation for work decisions | Court: Rejected — speculation/guesswork insufficient to prove racial animus or pretext |
| Whether Alvarez can assert an individual fraud claim based on alleged assurances about the MSC in 2016 | Alvarez: Blanchard represented MSC remained in effect and would yield future work; he relied on that | Blanchard: The MSC could remain in effect while Blanchard lawfully declined to issue job orders; statement was not false | Court: Granted summary judgment — alleged assurance was not false as a matter of law |
| Whether Alvarez’s additional alleged misrepresentation survives summary judgment and Rule 9(b) | Alvarez: (newly asserted) Blanchard told Amex to anticipate additional work | Blanchard: No record evidence, no particularity as to who, when, or how; fails Rules 56 and 9(b) | Court: Dismissed that theory — unsupported by evidence and fails Rule 9(b) particularity |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment standard explained)
- Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., LLC, 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir.) (materiality of factual disputes)
- Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556 (5th Cir.) (evidence and inferences viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Thomas v. Johnson, 788 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework for § 1981 claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
- Body by Cook, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 869 F.3d 381 (5th Cir.) (elements for §1981 showing)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S.) (burden-shifting and defendant’s production burden)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.) (pretext and evidence of disparate treatment)
- Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651 (5th Cir.) (speculation/guesswork cannot establish racial animus)
- Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 768 (Tex.) (elements of common-law fraud)