X hits on this document

PDF document

Case: 09-10183 Document: 00511475175 Page: 1 - page 17 / 19

57 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 19

Case: 09-10183 Document: 00511475175 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/12/2011

No. 09-10183

coworker harassment. These include allegations that he was called derogatory names by Green, that a group of Caucasians interfered with his work, that his name was written on the back of a trailer, and that Caucasian coworkers distracted him while he worked.

Hernandez does not offer evidence that the individuals responsible for his termination were tainted by discriminatory animus, or that his coworkers “possessed leverage, or exerted influence, over the titular decisionmaker.” Roberson v. Alltell Info. Servs., 373 F.3d 647, 653 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011). Rather, Hernandez merely states that he raised a fact issue that Yellow Transportation’s managers condoned his coworkers’ harassment. He does not cite evidence of this claim or reference the record. It is not our duty to scrutinize the record on appeal. Jones, 82 F.3d at 1338. Further, Hernandez does not lodge any such allegation against members of the formal grievance committee, which upheld Yellow Transportation’s decision to fire him.

c. Supervisor’s failure to respond to Hernandez’s complaint Hernandez contends that years before he was fired, Green pulled a knife on him and said, “this is for you and your sons.” Upon complaining to management, Hernandez alleges a supervisor told him he would get in trouble

if

he

pursued

the

claim.

Hernandez

did

not

present

evidence

linking

this

episode

with

his

termination,

nor

has

he

demonstrated

that

race

was

a

factor

in

the supervisor’s statement. A rational trier of fact would not rather than violating the workplace policy, was the actual

find that race, reason for his

termination. See Patel 342-43 (5th Cir. 2002).

v. Midland Mem’l Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d Summary judgment on this claim was proper.

333,

2. Retaliation Hernandez challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his retaliation claim. He argues that his discharge was retaliation for an array

17

Document info
Document views57
Page views57
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 07:11:12 UTC 2017
Pages19
Paragraphs209
Words5973

Comments