Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc.
670 F.3d 644
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hernandez, Ketterer, and Trevino, Hispanic and Caucasian employees, worked at Yellow Transportation's Dallas terminal under a Teamsters Local 2450 collective bargaining agreement.
- They asserted race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 2000e-2, and Texas Labor Code; EEOC right-to-sue letters were issued.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Yellow on all three plaintiffs’ claims, and the case proceeded via immediate appeal on the three named appellants.
- The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc and substituted its own opinion affirming the district court’s rulings.
- The court analyzed the four main dismissals on appeal: Hernandez and Trevino’s hostile environment claims, Ketterer’s hostile environment claim, Ketterer’s retaliation claim, and Hernandez’s discrimination and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Hernandez/Trevino’s hostile environment claim supported by facts showing severe or pervasive harassment? | Hernandez/Trevino rely on multiple incidents, including race-based and non-race-based harassment, to show a hostile environment. | Evidence fails to show harassment was severe/pervasive or connected to race; district court properly limited to admissible and personally experienced harassment. | No; district court properly granted summary judgment for lack of sufficiently severe/pervasive race-based harassment. |
| Is Ketterer’s hostile environment claim viable given association with minorities? | Ketterer suffered harassment partly due to association with minorities. | Harassment shown was not proven to be based on association with minorities; employer lacked notice/knowledge. | No; district court properly granted summary judgment for lack of evidence that harassment was tied to his minority association. |
| Did Ketterer establish a prima facie retaliation claim based on protected activity? | Picketing and other activities were protected; adverse actions followed. | Actions (e.g., supervisor conduct, workload, reinstatement) were not shown to be causally linked to protected activity. | No; the record failed to show but-for causation as to the asserted adverse actions. |
| Did Hernandez's discrimination and retaliation claims survive pretext considerations? | Evidence of pretext and disparate treatment supported discrimination/retaliation claims. | Evidence did not establish pretext; disciplinary actions followed policy violations and investigations. | No; pretext arguments did not create a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) (defines hostile environment factors and termination effects)
- Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2005) (harassment evidence must be tied to the victim's experiences)
- Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1989) (evidence of discrimination toward others may be relevant in some contexts)
- Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (requires highly similar circumstances for similarly-situated comparators)
- Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 1999) (pretext and timing considerations in discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework for proving discrimination)