United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
ANDRE W. WILLIAMS, SR., Plaintiff,
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.; LOUIS RAMIREZ; LANCE BUTLER; and MARK JOHNSON, Defendants.
LINDSAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 79), filed August 31, 2018; and Defendants'
Objections to and Motion to Strike Portions of
Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence (Doc. 90), filed
October 23, 2018. Defendants move for summary judgment on all
of Plaintiff's claims and object to and move to strike
certain summary judgment evidence relied on by Plaintiff in
response to their summary judgment motion. In particular,
Defendants object to the handwritten notes or commentary by
Plaintiff that appear on a large number of the documents in
the appendix to his summary judgment response. Defendants
also contend that Appendix pages 188 through 190 are not
authenticated and were not part of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) record. Appendix
page 188 appears to be a page from an EEOC Charge of
Discrimination form but is entirely illegible. Appendix page
189 is slightly more legible and includes the following
conclusory response to “Discriminatory
Statement”: “I believe I have been discriminated
against because of my age, 50, in violation of the age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. I also believe I
have been discriminated against because of my disability in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.” Appendix page 190 is an e-mail from Plaintiff to
the EEOC, dated September 12, 2014, inquiring about the
status of his charge.
January 30, 2019, the Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(“Report”) (Doc. 93) were entered, recommending
that the court deny Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions
of Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence (Doc. 90) but
treat the motion as objections to Plaintiff's summary
judgment evidence; grant Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 79); and dismiss with prejudice
Plaintiff's claims and this action. In support, the
magistrate determined that Plaintiff's Title VII race
discrimination and retaliation claims were unexhausted, and
Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
in response to Defendants' summary judgment regarding his
remaining claims that were brought pursuant to the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act (“ADEA”); the
Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”); the
Rehabilitation Act (“RA”); and 42 U.S.C.
§1981. The magistrate judge did not make any
recommendation regarding any of Defendants' objections to
Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence.
February 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed twenty-two pages of
objections to the Report (Doc. 94) and submitted a 260-page
appendix, to which Defendants responded on February 27, 2019.
Plaintiff asserts a number of objections to the magistrate
judge's factual findings and legal conclusions, including
those pertaining to his claims of racial discrimination and
retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §1981; age discrimination
and retaliation under the ADEA; and disability discrimination
and retaliation under the ADA and the RA.
considering the motions, briefs, competent summary judgment
evidence, file, record in this case, Report, the materials
filed in response to the Report, and having conducted a de
novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection
was made, the court determines that the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them
as those of the court, and overrules Plaintiff's
noted, the magistrate judge did not make any specific
recommendation regarding Defendants' Objections to and
Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment
Evidence (Doc. 90) other than to treat the motion as
objections. The court sustains in part Defendants'
objections and denies as moot in part the objections (Doc.
90). Specifically, the court sustains Defendants'
objections to the handwritten notes and commentary on
Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence and does not
consider any of the handwritten notes or commentary. The
court also does not consider Plaintiff's Appendix page
190, as the e-mail is inadmissible hearsay and, as Defendants
correctly note, it is unauthenticated in that the court
cannot determine whether it was ever sent to or received by
the EEOC. The court overrules as moot Defendants'
objections to Plaintiff's Appendix pages 188-189, as
consideration of these documents does not affect the
court's determination that the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge are correct.
the court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 79); dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff
against Defendants for discrimination and retaliation,
whether brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
or 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”); the Americans with
Disabilities Act ...