Maurice Goudeau v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3d 470

Maurice Goudeau, a long‑time NOV maintenance supervisor, was fired in August 2011 at age 57 after 18 years with the company.
After a new supervisor, Mike Perkins, took over in 2010, Perkins made repeated ageist remarks (e.g., “old farts,” “old man clothes”) and said he planned to fire certain older employees.
Goudeau complained to HR about Perkins’s comments; shortly thereafter Perkins reduced Goudeau’s authority, issued critical performance evaluations, and began issuing written warnings.
Four written warnings (three dated July 15, 2011, relating to different incidents, and a final warning dated August 10, 2011) appeared in Goudeau’s file and, according to Goudeau, were first shown to him at the termination meeting.
NOV defended the termination as based on poor performance and insubordination; Goudeau argued the warnings were pretextual and that Perkins’s ageist remarks and related firings of other older employees supported an ADEA/TCHRA claim.
The district court granted summary judgment for NOV on both age‑discrimination and retaliation claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim but reversed dismissal of the discrimination claim and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Goudeau made a prima facie ADEA/TCHRA age‑discrimination claim	Remarks by Perkins plus post‑complaint adverse actions and the firing of other older employees show age was a factor	Remarks are stray and insufficient; NOV had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (performance, insubordination)	Prima facie case satisfied; remarks and surrounding facts are admissible under the circumstantial (Russell) standard
Whether NOV’s stated reasons were pretext and ADEA "but‑for" causation established	Warnings were manufactured (dated same day, not previously provided), duties cited were outside job, and ageist remarks corroborate discriminatory motive	Employer legitimately cited performance/insubordination; at‑will firing permitted; warnings do not show pretext	Evidence created a genuine issue for jury on pretext and ADEA liability (reversing summary judgment); TCHRA motivating‑factor standard also met
Whether Goudeau established prima facie retaliation (ADEA/TCHRA)	He complained to HR about Perkins’s ageist comments and was later terminated	Temporal gap (8–10 months) and lack of evidence Perkins knew of the HR complaint defeat causation	Retaliation claim fails for lack of causal link (affirmed summary judgment)

Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing treatment of "stray remarks" as direct evidence vs. circumstantial evidence)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (employer’s proffered reasons may be shown false to prove intentional discrimination)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial employment discrimination claims)
Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000) (two‑part test for considering discriminatory remarks as circumstantial evidence)
Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996) ("stray remarks" direct‑evidence test requiring temporal and decisionmaker nexus)
Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2005) (McDonnell Douglas elements for ADEA claims)
Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (failure to follow employer’s usual procedures can support inference of pretext)
Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment review draws inferences for nonmovant; plaintiff’s prima facie evidence may be considered at pretext stage)