Houston v. TX Dept of Agri, 17 F.4th 576

Background

Ida Houston, a TDA Program Review Specialist, suffers from lupus and other illnesses and took FMLA leave multiple times.
After returning from extended medical leave in Jan 2016 she requested telework and a compressed four-day schedule; TDA approved the compressed week but denied telework.
From Aug 2016–Apr 2017 Houston received written warnings for absenteeism, tardiness, performance defects, and insubordination and was placed on a 90‑day probationary period.
Supervisors documented ongoing performance problems during probation (emails, a “Chart of Progress”); management decided to terminate her for failure to improve; termination notice was given Aug 17, 2017 after she took FMLA leave Aug 14–16.
Houston sued for FMLA retaliation and Rehabilitation Act disability discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for TDA, and Houston appealed.
The Fifth Circuit assumed (but did not decide) Houston met a minimal prima facie FMLA showing, held TDA proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, and affirmed summary judgment because Houston failed to raise a genuine dispute of pretext; the Rehabilitation Act claim failed for the same reasons.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Houston established FMLA retaliation	Houston says her termination was retaliatory for taking FMLA leave and that timing and other facts permit inference of retaliation	TDA contends termination followed documented performance issues, warnings, and failed probation unrelated to FMLA leave	Court assumed prima facie satisfied but held plaintiff failed to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed
Whether TDA's stated reasons were pretextual	Houston argues contemporaneous documents are unreliable, policies were deviated from, and supervisors made coercive comments	TDA points to written warnings, probation documentation, and consistent testimony showing performance, timeliness, accuracy, and insubordination problems	Court found documentation and testimony support TDA’s reasons and plaintiff produced insufficient evidence of pretext
Whether denial of telework (accommodation) shows pretext/setup to terminate	Houston argues denial of telework (requested as accommodation) set her up to fail and led to termination	TDA asserts telework was denied because job required on-site inspections and policy restricts telework; compressed schedule was granted	Court held telework denial was not shown to be an adverse FMLA act and speculative link to termination is insufficient to show pretext
Rehabilitation Act — whether terminated "solely by reason" of disability	Houston incorporates FMLA pretext arguments to show disability was the cause	TDA relies on same nondiscriminatory performance reasons and contends disability was not the sole reason	Because Houston failed to show pretext under FMLA, she also failed to show the required "solely by reason" causal link; claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Wheat v. Florida Par. Juv. Just. Comm’n, 811 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and FMLA framework discussion)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden rules)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and inference standards)
Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., 434 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2005) (articulating legitimate nondiscriminatory reason step)
Goudeau v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2015) (when deviations from discipline procedures can indicate pretext)
Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (insufficient opportunity to improve may support inference of pretext)
Soledad v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, 304 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rehabilitation Act requires discrimination occur “solely by reason of” disability)