United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
FRANCES H. STACY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
in this case that has been referred for all further pre-trial
proceedings is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Document No. 17). Having considered that motion, Plaintiffs
response in opposition (Document No. 22), Defendant's
reply (Document No. 23), the claim(s) alleged in Plaintiffs
Original Complaint, the summary judgment evidence, and the
applicable law, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS, for the
reasons set forth below, that Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment be GRANTED.
an employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiff Thomas
Thompson ("Thompson") against his former employer
XL Parts, LLC ("XL Parts") for sex discrimination
and retaliation. Thompson alleges in his Original Complaint
that "Defendant took a stance where they treated female
employees more favorably than they did him," and that
Defendant "failed to allow [him] to address his accusers
and accusations in detail [that he made female employees
uncomfortable] on at least two occasions," thereby
treating him "less favorably than female
employees." The entirety of Thompson's
allegations are as follows:
4.1 Plaintiff worked for XL Parts LLC (Defendant) for
approximately three years as Training and Development
Manager. Defendant never disciplined him or wrote him up for
any misconduct or behavioral issues.
4.2 Defendant took a stance with Plaintiff where they treated
female employees more favorably than they did him.
4.3 Plaintiff maintained a practice where he took all new
hires to lunch. Defendant informed Plaintiff that he was not
allowed to put himself in a position where he was to be one
on one with a female employee at the same time refusing to
allow him to find out if he did anything that made a female
uncomfortable. Plaintiff made two other requests to obtain
this information and Human Resources ignored him. Defendant
did not ignore the female employee.
4.4. On another occasion, Defendant told Plaintiff a female
employee was uncomfortable with him in her store (Plaintiff
was there to train and coach her). To the contrary, the
female told him she was not uncomfortable with him and
didn't have any problems with him in her store.
4.5 Plaintiff had requested a meeting with this employee,
human resources, his supervisor and the Dallas General
manager. Defendant refused. To the contrary, when Plaintiffs
female human resources counterpart requested to discuss the
same issues about him in the presence of Defendant's
president, the COO, CFO, the Houston general manager, the
field trainer and the president of Marubeni North America,
Defendant acquiesced. This was inappropriate.
4.6 Defendant wholly failed to allow Plaintiff to address his
accusers and accusations in detail on at least two occasions.
Defendant treated Plaintiff less favorably than female
4.7 Defendant terminated Plaintiff on June 14, 2016.
4.8 Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as amended.
(Document No. l)at2-3. Given the paucity of allegations, XL
Parts filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and,
alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement (Document
No. 6). On September 5, 2018, the Court denied without
prejudice XL Parts' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim, but granted XL Parts' Motion
for More Definite Statement and ordered Thompson to re-plead
within fourteen days (Document No. 13). To this date,
Thompson has not re-pleaded or otherwise complied with the
September 5, 2018 Order.
Parts now seeks summary judgment on Thompson's claim(s),
arguing that Thompson has no evidence to support a sex
discrimination claim, and that he has not only failed to
re-plead his claim, he has failed to participate in discovery
of any kind. Thompson, in response, has submitted his own
Declaration (Document No. 22-2), along with three exhibits:
an Employer response to Notice of Application for
Unemployment Benefits (Document No. 22-3), an XL Parts
Corrective Action "form" (Document Nos. 22-4 and
22-5), and an email exchange between Curt Miles and Jose
Ferraracci (Document No. 22-6). XL Parts, in reply, argues
that nothing Thompson has submitted raises a genuine issue of
material fact on the required elements of a prima facie
claim. In addition, XL Parts argues that ...