Eugene Flores v. Select Energy Services, L.L.C.
486 F. App'x 429
5th Cir.2012Background
- Flores, former employee of Select Energy Services, sued for age and race discrimination, retaliation, and negligence.
- Flores was told on Feb 20, 2011 he would seek work closer to home and would stay for two weeks; he worked one more week guided by new employment prospects.
- During Flores’s final week, he had an automobile accident in a company vehicle, tested negative for drugs/alcohol, and was fired the following day.
- Flores alleged younger employees with similar accidents were not fired and others over 40 were fired after accidents; he also alleged a younger driver not fired after an accident.
- Original complaint filed Apr 27, 2011; Select moved to dismiss May 20, 2011, one day after the Rule 12 deadline; Flores sought default/Default Judgment which the court denied.
- District court found the motion to dismiss meritorious but granted leave to amend; after Flores amended, Select’s second motion to dismiss was granted; Flores appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default denial was an abuse of discretion | Flores argues default should be entered due to untimely filing | Select contends small delay and lack of prejudice justify denial | No abuse of discretion |
| Whether Flores stated a plausible ADEA claim at Rule 12(b)(6) | Alleges firing post-accident and younger employees treated differently | Allegations insufficient to plead age discrimination | Age claim plausibly stated and reversed in part |
| Whether Flores stated a retaliation claim | Claims protected activity but lacks discrete facts | No support for protected activity linked to retaliation | Retaliation claim dismissed |
| Whether Flores has standing to challenge race-discrimination claims | Claims pertain to policy post-employment; standing unclear | Claims lack factual basis and standing | Race-discrimination claim dismissed for lack of standing/facts |
| Whether Flores stated a viable negligence claim | Maintained maintenance complaints showed negligence | Naked assertion with no causation | Negligence claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 F.3d 506 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (allows pleading of prima facie case not required to state a claim under federal rules)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (discourages bare allegations; requires plausible claims)
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2010) (ADEA age but-for causation standard guidance)
- Berquist v. Washington Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2007) (elements of an ADEA claim discussed for plausibility)
- Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (de novo review standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001) (default judgments are drastic and disfavored)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (retaliation claims limited by protected activity requirements)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of Texas, Inc. v. Abbott, 647 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2011) (standing issues in race-discrimination context)