X hits on this document

PDF document

Case: 09-10183 Document: 00511475175 Page: 1 - page 4 / 19

43 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

4 / 19

Case: 09-10183 Document: 00511475175 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/12/2011

No. 09-10183

reviewing grants of motions for summary judgment.” Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “If the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, then there is no genuine issue for trial.” Harvill v. Westward Commc’ns, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428, 433 (5th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiffs group their arguments of error around four of the dismissals by the district court: (A) Hernandez and Trevino’s hostile work environment claims, (B) Ketterer’s hostile work environment claim, (C) Ketterer’s retaliation claim, and (D) Hernandez’s retaliation and race discrimination claims. In response, Yellow Transportation argues that Plaintiffs at times highlight facts from the voluminous summary judgment record that were not identified for the district court and therefore were not considered in ruling on summary judgment.

The argument that new material cannot be presented on appeal is a legally valid one, though we need to determine whether factually it is applicable here. A district court’s decision on summary judgment is largely controlled by what the parties presented. If somewhere in a record there is some evidence that might show a dispute of material fact, the district court needs to be pointed to that evidence as opposed to having to engage in an extensive search. Fed. R.

  • Civ.

    P. 56(c); Jones v. Sheehan, Young & Culp, P.C., 82 F.3d 1334, 1338 (5th Cir.

    • 1996)

      . The district court “considered all the evidence that plaintiffs’ properly

cited in their summary judgment briefing, and it had no duty to comb the entire record” for other evidence. Arrieta v. Yellow Transp., Inc., No. 3:05-CV-2271, 2009 WL 129731, *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2009) (unpublished). We agree. A. Hernandez and Trevino’s Hostile Work Environment Claims

Hernandez and Trevino allege that as to their hostile work environment claims, the district court improperly refused to consider all the evidence of harassment, including harassment suffered by other Hispanics and African- Americans, and instances of non-race-based harassment.

4

Document info
Document views43
Page views43
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 22:44:29 UTC 2016
Pages19
Paragraphs209
Words5973

Comments