Gerald Caldwell v. KHOU-TV
850 F.3d 237
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Caldwell, a disabled video editor at KHOU-TV, was fired after a 2014-2015 period of medical leave and revisions to departmental EDR work policy.
- KHOU and its parent Gannett implemented a workforce reduction that eliminated two editor positions, including Caldwell’s.
- Supervisors Kell and Murray advised the final decision-maker Bruce, who selected Caldwell for termination based on input about day-to-day EDR work.
- Defendants initially claimed Caldwell refused or avoided EDR work, but later gave evolving explanations (inability to adapt to technological changes; lack of initiative in EDR).
- Caldwell contends he was not given warnings or improvement opportunities like non-disabled peers and was limited in EDR by employer policy, not his performance.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Defendants; Caldwell appeals, and the Fifth Circuit reverses and remands on both ADA and FMLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA pretext—whether Caldwell’s termination shows pretext for discrimination. | Caldwell shows inconsistent defenses and disparate treatment. | Defendants relied on a legitimate RIF reason and lack of initiative. | Genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment reversed. |
| FMLA pretext/interference—whether termination after leave shows pretext or interference. | Caldwell’s firing shortly after requesting FMLA leave indicates interference/pretext. | Defendants argued legitimate non-discriminatory reasons and no pretext. | Genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gee v. Principi, 289 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2002) (inconsistent explanations cast doubt on truthfulness of reasons)
- Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 482 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2007) (inconsistent explanations permit inference of pretext)
- Jackson v. Cal-West Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2010) (pretext framework under McDonnell Douglas)
- EEOC v. Exxon Shipping Co., 745 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 1984) (pretext standards in discrimination cases)
- Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1991) (summary judgment not warranted on meritless pretext claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext must show more than conclusory assertions)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (pretext showing requires evidence beyond self-serving denials)
- Vaughn v. Edel, 918 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1990) (analogous to disparate treatment where disabled employee lacked notice/opportunity to improve)