Ronald Reed v. Neopost USA, Incorporated
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23289
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Reed worked for Neopost ~5 years and was paid based on completed surveys; in-kind bonuses were awarded for high totals.
- After a coworker accused Reed of submitting falsified surveys following a cruise contest, Neopost terminated him; Reed was 60.
- Reed alleged coworkers called him age-based names; he did not report the remarks and harassers had no decision-making authority over termination.
- Reed asserted age-discrimination claims under the Texas Labor Code (TCHRA) and/or ADEA; the district court granted Neopost summary judgment and dismissed the claims.
- On appeal, Reed argues the district court used the wrong causation standard for his TCHRA claim and that a hostile-work-environment claim was improperly rejected.
- The panel reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying McDonnell Douglas framework to the circumstantial-age claims and evaluating the hostile-environment claim under Texas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation standard under TCHRA vs ADEA | Reed contends TCHRA requires a motivating-factor standard, not but-for. | Neopost argues the district court correctly used or effectively applied the applicable standard; pretext/mixed-motive analysis governs. | Summary judgment upheld; insufficiency of evidence under either standard. |
| Hostile work environment under TCHRA | Reed asserts age-based remarks created a hostile environment under TCHRA. | Remarks are stray/circumstantial and not pervasively discriminatory affecting terms or conditions. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue of material fact on hostility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (TCHRA mirrors Title VII; circumstantial proof uses McDonnell Douglas framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the three-part burden-shifting framework)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (clarifies burden at prima facie stage)
- Hernandez v. Grey Wolf Drilling, L.P., 350 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (guides Texas application of McDonnell Douglas in TCHRA claims)
- Black v. Pan Am. Labs., L.L.C., 646 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2011) (discusses pretext/motive framework in discrimination analysis)
- Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2004) (discusses motivating-factor framework in mixed-motive claims)
- Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., 655 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2011) (hostile environment framework under Fifth Circuit practice)
- Willrich v. City of San Antonio, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (addresses hostility and pervasiveness in workplace claims)
- Fletcher v. City of Houston, 166 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (age-based hostile environment standard under Texas law)
- Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000) (flexible two-part test for circumstantial evidence in discrimination)