United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Mcbryde, United States District Judge.
the court for consideration and decision is the motion of
defendant, Capital One, N.A., for summary judgment on the
claims of plaintiff, Quentin Pete, against it. Having
considered the motion, plaintiff's response thereto,
defendant's reply, plaintiff's surreply, the entire
record in this action, and the applicable legal authorities,
the court finds that the motion should be granted and that
the claims asserted by plaintiff against defendant should be
dismissed with prejudice.
initiated this action on June 12, 2017, by the filing of an
original petition in the District Court of Tarrant County,
Texas, 96th Judicial District. On July 24, 2017, defendant
removed the action to this court. On September 20, 2017,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, titled
"Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint,"
asserting as Count 1 race and color discrimination arising
under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-l7, as
Count 2 race and color discrimination arising under Chapter
21 of the Texas Labor Code, and as Count 3 a violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1981. On April 19, 2018, plaintiff amended his
complaint to add as Count 4 a claim that defendant violated
plaintiff's rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act
("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2611-2654, by
failing to provide plaintiff requisite notices.
Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Response
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
10, 2018, defendant filed the motion for summary judgment now
before the court. Defendant seeks summary judgment on
plaintiff's claims against it on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of
race or color discrimination "because he cannot prove
that Capital One treated non-African American, Black
employees more favorably under 'nearly identical'
circumstances." Doc. 73 at 2.
2. Plaintiff's color discrimination claims fail for the
additional reason that plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies relative to the claims because he did
not file a charge of discrimination with the Texas Workforce
Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
3. Even if plaintiff could establish a prima facie
case of discrimination, defendant has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating
plaintiff--that plaintiff violated a company policy and
falsified documents--which plaintiff admitted in his
deposition was not pretext.
4. Plaintiff's FMLA claim has no basis in law because
plaintiff was provided notice in May and June 2016 of his
eligibility for FMLA leave.
5. All of plaintiff's claims are barred by judicial
estoppel due to plaintiff's failure to disclose the
claims asserted in this action to the bankruptcy court during
the pendency of his bankruptcy proceeding, which was ...