Harvey Anderson v. Ben Wade
694 F. App'x 243
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anderson, a 59-year-old African-American truck driver for Venture Express, was disciplined repeatedly for log violations, insubordination, and received an ALDOT citation for hours-of-service violations.
- Venture suspended and ultimately terminated Anderson for continued log-related violations and insubordination.
- Anderson filed an EEOC charge alleging race and age discrimination and received a right-to-sue letter; he later sued in federal court asserting discrimination and retaliation.
- Venture moved for summary judgment, arguing admitted facts (from unanswered requests for admission) and record evidence showed lawful, non-discriminatory reasons for termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Venture; on appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, construing Anderson’s pro se filings liberally but found no competent evidence of discrimination or retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination under Title VII (prima facie and pretext) | Anderson contends termination was conspiracy/illegal discrimination because he disputed log violations | Venture says Anderson was fired for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (policy violations/insubordination) and produced evidence he was replaced by an African-American | Court: No prima facie showing; Anderson offered no evidence of disparate treatment; summary judgment affirmed |
| Retaliation (failure to exhaust) | Anderson argues he was retaliated against for refusing to violate rules | Venture argues retaliation was not alleged in EEOC charge so claim not exhausted | Court: Retaliation not in EEOC charge; investigation into retaliation could not reasonably grow from charge filed after termination; claim dismissed |
| Age discrimination under ADEA (but-for causation) | Anderson asserts age was basis for termination (EEOC charge references age) | Venture points to repeated violations and warnings as nondiscriminatory reason for termination | Court: Anderson produced no evidence linking termination to age; cannot show age was but-for cause; claim dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence at summary judgment (pro se status) | Anderson relies on pro se filings and disputes correctness of violations | Venture relies on admissions, affidavits, and termination records; district court considered record despite pro se status | Court: Liberally construed pro se filings but plaintiff still must point to competent evidence; he did not; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard; nonmovant must show genuine issue of material fact)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for prima facie discrimination burden-shifting)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires plaintiff to prove age was the but-for cause)
- Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (Fifth Circuit summary judgment review and ADEA prima facie elements)
- Paske v. Fitzgerald, 785 F.3d 977 (definition of prima facie Title VII discrimination elements)