Jerrell Squyres v. Heico Companies, L.L.C., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5359

Background

Squyres sold his company to S-Line and, as part of the deal, entered a 3‑year written Employment Agreement (VP Sales & Marketing) that paid $400,000 annually and did not guarantee renewal. The Agreement expired October 22, 2011, when Squyres was 70.
S‑Line/Ancra (Heico affiliates) decided not to renew the Agreement, cited dissatisfaction with Squyres’s performance, and offered him an Independent Sales Representative role with reduced base pay and commissions; Squyres negotiated and missed the employer’s acceptance deadline; S‑Line rescinded the offer and Squyres ceased working there.
Squyres sued under the ADEA and Texas TCHRA alleging age discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on pretext grounds and denied several continuances and a late motion to amend; Squyres appealed.
The Fifth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that Squyres could make a prima facie case but held defendants articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (performance, economics, failure to accept offer) and that Squyres failed to raise a genuine fact dispute on pretext.
The court also affirmed denial of continuances and of leave to amend because Squyres had not shown diligence or good cause under Rule 16 and amendment would prejudice defendants and require reopened discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants’ nonrenewal/rescission was age discrimination under ADEA/TCHRA	Squyres contends the end of his employment was a discriminatory adverse action and that age was the but‑for/motivating cause	Defendants say Agreement expired by its terms, offered alternative role for non‑discriminatory reasons (performance, economics), withdrawn when Squyres missed deadline	Court assumed prima facie case but held defendants gave legitimate reasons and Squyres failed to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed
Pretext — did evidence permit a jury to reject defendants’ reasons?	Squyres points to inconsistent statements, coworkers’ “old guy” remarks, HR comment, and procedural irregularities as evidence of pretext	Defendants rely on affidavits, deposition testimony, emails showing performance concerns and deadline-based rescission; stray remarks were intermittent and not from decisionmaker	Court found no genuine dispute: explanations were not materially inconsistent, stray remarks insufficient, and no evidence decisionmaker acted from age bias
Whether denial of continuances abused discretion	Squyres sought extensions (lawyer injury, parties’ earlier agreement to delay discovery) and argued depositions needed	Defendants argued discovery delays were self‑imposed and deadlines long known; summary judgment was pending	Court held district court did not abuse discretion: Squyres lacked diligence, delays were self‑imposed, no Rule 56(d) showing of needed discovery
Whether denial of leave to amend (to add fraud claim) was proper	Squyres sought to add fraud claim after deposing Frediani and relied on prior quid pro quo email	Defendants argued amendment was untimely, prejudicial, would reopen discovery and follow‑on summary judgment practice	Court affirmed denial under Rule 16(b): Squyres failed to show good cause/diligence and amendment would prejudice defendants

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (employer’s production burden and pretext proof standards)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (effect of employer’s articulated reasons on prima facie presumption)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden of production and persuasion in discrimination cases)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but‑for causation)
Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (discusses but‑for causation standard; cited regarding burden of proof)
Miller v. Raytheon Co., 716 F.3d 138 (5th Cir. standard for evaluating ADEA claims under McDonnell Douglas)
Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (distinguishes ADEA and TCHRA causation/mixed‑motive standards)
Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. test for when workplace comments can show discriminatory animus)