Gregory Willis v. Cleco Corporation
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6449
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Willis, African-American, sued Cleco for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; district court granted summary judgment to Cleco on all claims.
- Willis alleged retaliation from his reporting of a racially hostile conversation involving Melancon and Cleco management.
- Disciplinary Warning (April 16, 2007) and a Work Improvement Plan (August 15, 2007) were advanced by Cleco as non-retaliatory reasons for discipline and termination.
- Willis’s termination (February 4, 2009) followed complaints about an inappropriate phone conversation with Sylvia and an investigation exonerating Willis, contradicted by his supervisors' later actions.
- Ardoin affidavit claimed Melancon stated termination was for reporting him, suggesting retaliatory motive; Melancon and Taylor denied discriminatory intent.
- Majority reversed on retaliation from the Disciplinary Warning, affirmed on other claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation via Disciplinary Warning pretext | Willis argues pretext, citing Ardoin’s affidavit | Cleco maintains the reasons were legitimate | Pretext issue exists; summary judgment reversed |
| Work Improvement Plan claim | Willis contends plan was retaliatory | Not adequately briefed; waived | Waived; claim not decided on appeal |
| Wrongful termination pretext | Evidence shows retaliation/racial animus in termination | District court properly found no prima facie case or pretext | Dismissal reversed on retaliation and discrimination theories; remanded for further proceedings |
| Prima facie case adequacy | Showed similarly situated comparator evidence | Did not prove comparator analysis required | Appellate review of prima facie case waived; pretext analysis insufficient to sustain judgment |
| Reconsideration of ruling | District court should reconsider after first summary judgment | No merit; proper procedure followed | No reversible error; no unfair second bite |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2004) (retaliation framework under Title VII/§ 1981; prima facie case and pretext)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (pretext and evidence standards in retaliation cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (affirmative burden on reviewing court to draw inferences for non-movant)
- Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court not required to sift record; burden on opposing party)
- Nichols v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 495 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2007) (inadequate briefing can waive issue)
- Adams v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta, 364 F.3d 646 (5th Cir. 2004) (issues not adequately briefed are waived)
- Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 1996) (causal connection and 'but for' causation in retaliation)