Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—5th Cir.: Veteran, fired after taking leave when job triggered PTSD, cannot revive claims, (Jan 29, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

There was no evidence of temporal proximity between the filing of his EEOC charge and termination, as he was warned he would be fired two months prior to the charge.

A former plant operator and combat veteran who worked in a gas plant failed to revive his various claims arising under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and USERRA, ruled the Fifth Circuit in an unpublished opinion. His job duties included managing “alarms and problems” and reacting to high stress situations, which triggered his PTSD symptoms. He was fired when he failed to return to work after taking short-term disability leave, but was unable to proffer any evidence that bias played a role in the employer’s decision to terminate his employment (Garza v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., No. 24-10208 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025, unpublished)).

In 2015, the individual who brought this case began working for La Grange Acquisition, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners. In 2019, he became a plant operator in one of the employer’s gas plants. Among the job’s “required qualifications” was managing “alarms and problems” and “react[ing] to high stress/emergency situations in a deliberate, thoughtful, and timely manner.”

Leave. As a combat veteran, the employee suffered from PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Eventually, he found that he could not work in his current role because the conditions—particularly the alarms—triggered his PTSD.

In April 2021, he requested accommodations in the form of either reassignment or another employee’s assistance. Receiving neither, he took short-term disability leave in July. His accommodation requests were denied in October. That same month, the employee applied for a position as a safety representative.

On November 2, 2021, the employee was informed that if he could not return to work or obtain an extension of his leave, his employment would be terminated on January 6, 2022. On January 4, he was informed that he would not be hired for the safety representative role. That same day, he filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging violations of the ADA, TCHRA, and USERRA.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, he filed this suit alleging disability and age discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and harassment under the TCHRA and retaliation and discrimination under USERRA. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer against all claims. This appeal followed.

Disability discrimination. First, the court considered the employee’s TCHRA claims, beginning with his disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims. Here, the court found the employee could point to no evidence he could perform a plant operator’s essential functions despite his disability. It was undisputed that the position required the employee to respond to alarms and to deal with high stress situations, and that his PTSD prevented him from performing those functions. Indeed, observed the court, this is what led him to take disability leave in the first place.

Moreover, the employee could not show that he was denied reasonable accommodations. His request for coworker assistance was not something the employer was required to accommodate, nor could he point to any genuine dispute as to whether he was entitled to any transfer positions.

Interactive process? To further bolster his disability discrimination claims, the employee argued that the employer failed to engage in a good faith interactive process with him. However, explained the court, he presented no evidence that he was ever denied reasonable accommodations in the first place. Thus, any purported “failure” in the interactive process could not have led to a failure to accommodate.

Age discrimination. Turning to the employee’s claim for age discrimination, the district court had found that the employee pointed to no evidence that his age motivated the employer’s decision. On appeal, the employee identified no error in the district court’s ruling.

Retaliation. Next, the court considered the employee’s retaliation claim. Here, the employee contended that his claim was wrongly dismissed because the temporal proximity between the filing of his EEOC charge on January 4 and subsequent termination on January 6 pointed to evidence of retaliation. The court was not moved.

The employer had already informed the employee on November 2 that he would be terminated on January 6 if he did not return to work or get his leave extended. The fact that he subsequently filed an EEOC charge two days before the January 6 termination did not suggest that he was fired in retaliation for doing so, said the court.

Disability, age-based harassment. Finally, the court addressed the employee’s TCHRA claims for disability- and age-based harassment. The district court held that the employee failed to produce any evidence he was harassed in any way. On appeal, the employee failed to show any error in the district court’s ruling.

USERRA retaliation. Addressing the employee’s USERRA claims, the court began with his claim for retaliation. The district court’s ruling on this claim mirrored its ruling on the TCHRA retaliation claim, namely that the employee produced no evidence that his EEOC charge was a motivating factor in the termination decision. The appellate court found no error, again observing that the temporal proximity between the filing of the charge and the termination was not evidence of retaliation given the employee was warned his job was in jeopardy more than two months before the charge was filed.

Service-based discrimination. Finally, the court considered the employee’s claim of service-based discrimination. The district court determined that the employee had presented no evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find that he had experienced service-based discrimination. On appeal, the employee failed to explain why the district court had erred in its ruling. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the employee’s claims was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-10208.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Charles Henry Peckham (Peckham Martin) for Abel Garza. Kelley Riddle Edwards (Littler Mendelson) for Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C.

Companies: Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims USERRAVeterans LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews