X hits on this document

PDF document

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





19 / 19

Case: 09-10183 Document: 00511475175 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/12/2011

No. 09-10183

Hernandez’s allegations regarding the investigation into his encounter with Green were not raised in the district court as to this claim. It is too late to identify it on appeal. See Forsyth, 19 F.3d at 1537.

b. Procedures governing post-termination grievance process Hernandez’s allegations regarding the procedures governing his post- termination grievance process are unsupported by evidence and merely speculative. See Ramsey, 286 F.3d at 269 (holding that “conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy” the nonmovant’s burden in a motion for summary judgment) (citation omitted).

c. Disparity in treatment between Green and Hernandez Hernandez alleges that following his incident with Green, he was formally removed from service pending the grievance hearing, while Green was permitted to take vacation. In addition, Green only received a warning, whereas Hernandez was fired.

Accepting these facts as true, we find that they fail to establish anything other than that Yellow Transportation treated Hernandez’s threats more severely than the initial verbal exchange. They do not establish “but for” causation.

d. Similarly-situated employees treated more favorably In evaluating this claim, we follow the district court’s lead in giving considerable weight to Hernandez’s admission that he committed the acts for which he was discharged, that those acts violated the workplace policy, and the formal grievance committee upheld his discharge. Nothing Hernandez presents contradicts Yellow Transportation’s offered reason for firing him.

Hernandez has failed to establish that Yellow Transportation unlawfully retaliated against him. Summary judgment was proper.



Document info
Document views65
Page views65
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 04:51:21 UTC 2017