Cargo v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co, 675 F.3d 887

Stanley is an African American employee who started at KCS in 2000 as an electrician and later became a conductor trainee in the transportation department.
He was suspended six times between 2002 and 2004 and was terminated in February 2004 after an investigation into General Order No. 9 reporting requirements.
Plaintiff asserted discrimination claims; the court noted Stanley expressly conceded all state-law claims, his Louisiana Employment Discrimination Claim, and his retaliation claim, and by omission conceded sex discrimination, failure to promote, and disparate impact discrimination.
Only two claims remained properly before the court: hostile work environment and discriminatory discharge.
KCS moved to strike certain exhibits, including an affidavit by Stanley and depositions from prior litigation; the court addressed admissibility and personal-knowledge requirements.
The court ultimately granted summary judgment for KCS, dismissing all of Stanley’s claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stanley proves a hostile work environment based on race.	Stanley argues conduct (hostling, knee pain, doctor visit, and a hanging noose) created a racially hostile environment.	No substantial, race-based, pervasive harassment altering employment conditions; some incidents were not proven to be racially motivated and no evidence showed impact on terms of employment.	No genuine triable issue; hostile environment claim fails.
Whether Stanley proves discriminatory discharge under McDonnell Douglas framework.	Disparate treatment evidenced by comparators allegedly engaged in similar misconduct without termination.	Comparators are not sufficiently similar; no evidence that discharge was racially motivated; legitimate non-discriminatory reasons shown.	Discriminatory discharge claim fails; no prima facie showing of similarly situated comparators.
Whether the deposition and affidavit evidence (Venditti, Duke, Harville, and Stanley's affidavit) were properly admitted.	Depositions support Stanley's claims and should be considered.	Depositions from a prior case are not shown to involve the same subject matter; portions of the affidavit lack personal knowledge and conflict with deposition testimony.	Depositions stricken; most of Stanley's affidavit portions stricken; evidentiary record narrowed.

Stewart v. Mississippi Transport Commission, 586 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2009) (defines hostile environment standard and totality of circumstances)
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (set framework for hostile environment retaliation considerations)
DeAngelis v. El Paso Municipal Police Officers Ass'n, 51 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 1995) (courts may consider verbal intimidation and insults in hostile environment cases)
Hockman v. Westward Communications, LLC, 407 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004) (teasing and isolated incidents generally insufficient for Title VII without extreme severity)
Nasti v. CIBA Specialty Chemicals Corp., 492 F.3d 589 (5th Cir. 2007) (McDonnell Douglas framework and pretext showings for race discrimination)
Lee v. Kansas City Southern Ry Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (similarly situated comparator standard requires nearly identical circumstances)