Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13613

Background

Cynthia Heinsohn worked as a legal assistant at Carabin & Shaw (C&S) on Social Security cases; she took maternity leave in late 2012 and was terminated about two weeks into that leave.
Before leaving, her supervisor(s) discussed reassignment of her files to another assistant; after she left, coworkers and supervisors reviewed case-management notes and reported missed deadlines. C&S fired Heinsohn without asking her for an explanation and sent a termination letter citing a review of her work.
Heinsohn sued in Texas court alleging FMLA and TCHRA (pregnancy discrimination) claims; C&S removed to federal court based on the FMLA claim. During summary-judgment briefing Heinsohn withdrew the FMLA claim (stipulating C&S lacked sufficient employees for FMLA coverage).
The magistrate judge struck portions of Heinsohn’s affidavits and portions of her deposition, recommended granting C&S summary judgment and denying Heinsohn’s; the district court adopted the recommendation and entered judgment for C&S. Heinsohn appealed.
The Fifth Circuit considered (1) whether supplemental jurisdiction existed over the remaining state-law TCHRA claim given the voluntary dismissal of the FMLA claim, (2) several evidentiary rulings (striking affidavits and deposition testimony), and (3) whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on discrimination/pretext.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter / supplemental jurisdiction after FMLA withdrawal	Heinsohn implicitly argues the court may retain the state claim; removal was based on FMLA but court can exercise §1367	C&S relied on federal claim for removal but did not expressly plead supplemental jurisdiction	Supplemental jurisdiction exists over the TCHRA claim; C&S may amend to invoke §1367 on remand
Exclusion of Heinsohn’s earlier and later affidavits	Affidavits supplied admissible facts and explanations; later affidavit should have been considered	C&S moved to strike as untimely and contradictory to deposition	Earlier affidavit—court did not abuse discretion striking portions about C&S’s reasons; Later affidavit—properly excluded for unjustified delay (no abuse of discretion)
Striking deposition testimony based on emails / best-evidence concerns	Deposition testimony about conversations and supervisory expectations is admissible; Rule 1002 doesn’t bar non-documentary proof of events	Magistrate held emails refuted testimony and struck relevant deposition statements	Court abused discretion in striking deposition testimony as "refuted" by emails because that improperly weighed evidence; testimony should have remained for credibility determination
Appropriateness of summary judgment on TCHRA (pretext)	Heinsohn produced circumstantial evidence creating genuine issues (authenticity of notes, supervision confusion, contemporaneous notes showing she informed supervisors and sent good-cause letters)	C&S produced Shaw’s testimony and case-management notes as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (missed deadlines and concealment)	Reversed: genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether C&S’s proffered reasons are true or pretextual; summary judgment improper; credibility determinations must be left to finder of fact

Key Cases Cited

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (jurisdictional threshold versus element of claim)
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (supplemental jurisdiction and §1367 discretion)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (burden-shifting and proof of pretext)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial discrimination proof)
Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer’s production burden and pretext analysis)
Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (contemporaneous documentation as employer proof)
Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222 (summary-judgment credibility principles)