By David Worley
In Stokes v. Dallas County Juvenile Dep’t, 20, WH Cases 2d 327 (5th Cir. 2013) the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment on retaliation claims under both Title VII and the FMLA when the plaintiff could indicate no connection between her termination and the activities protected by both those statutes. Further the employer provided substantial evidence supporting the termination of the plaintiff, including numerous instances of poor performance that resulted in discipline. Although the plaintiff could make a prima facie case regarding the FMLA claim (but not the Title VII claim), the court nevertheless found summary judgement was proper when no reasonable person could find that discrimination had occurred.
The plaintiff, Tyjuania Stokes, was an employee of the Dallas County Juvenile Rehabilitation Center for six years. During that time, she was reprimanded and disciplined for a number of performance and personality related issues. Prior to her termination, she injured her back and went on FMLA leave. While on leave, a decision was made to terminate her employment. The decision, made by the HR manager, was made without knowledge that she was on leave. After being notified of her termination, Stokes brought claims alleging both harassment and a hostile work environment because of her race, as well as retaliatory firing for exercising FMLA rights.
The court found that both claims were baseless. Regarding the Title VII claim, Stokes was required to indicate a causal connection between her protected activity and the retaliatory firing to make a prima facie case. She did not indicate any such thing.
Stokes does not so much as mention an activity or characteristic protected under Title VII. She does not allege or provide any evidence that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin played a role in [any harassment] or in any employment decision adverse to her.
Regarding the FMLA retaliation claim, the court was allowed to infer a causal connection because of the fact that Stokes was terminated while on FMLA leave. The defendant then provided the non-discriminatory reason for the termination, “Stokes’ history of insubordination, aggressive interactions with supervisors, excessive tardiness, and failure to follow workplace procedures.” Stokes argued these reasons were pretextual, but offered little proof to support that claim.
A non-movant in a summary judgment dispute cannot satisfy her evidentiary burden with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence. Summary judgment is appropriate in any case where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the non-movant.
Because Stokes could not offer any meaningful evidence to her assertion that the defendant’s reasons for termination were a pretext, it was apparent to the court in this case that her firing was for her continuous poor performance.
