Bryant v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM RULING re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Signed by Chief Judge S Maurice Hicks, Jr on 1/4/2019. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
JAMARA BRYANT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-0683

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 568

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 568 (“Local 568”). See Record Document
12. Noting that this Motion is unopposed by pro se Plaintiff Jamara Bryant (“Bryant”), after
a review of the record, Local 568’s Motion is hereby GRANTED.
Bryant was employed by United Parcel Service (“UPS”) as a driver. Local 568
represents UPS drivers in Shreveport, Louisiana, in connection with collective bargaining
agreements. On July 15, 2016, UPS terminated Bryant for dishonesty. Local 568 filed a
grievance on behalf of Bryant, alleging that UPS did not have just cause to discharge
Bryant. The grievance was heard and denied. At that point, there was nothing further that
Local 568 could do on behalf of Bryant.
Bryant filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation against UPS with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). He also filed a charge of retaliation
against Local 568 with the EEOC. The EEOC dismissed both charges and gave Bryant
right to sue notices. On November 6, 2017, Bryant filed a pro se lawsuit against UPS but
never properly served UPS. Accordingly, on February 23, 2018, the court dismissed his
lawsuit against UPS. See Case No. 5:17-cv-1451, Document 9. Thereafter, Bryant filed

the instant pro se complaint against Local 568 on May 23, 2018, alleging that Local 568
retaliated against him. See Record Document 1. On August 28, 2018, Local 568 filed the
instant Motion for Summary Judgment. See Record Document 12.
Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Serv.
Corp., 628 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2010). “Rule 56[(a)] mandates the entry of summary
judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). Additionally, Local Rule 56.1
requires the moving party to file a statement of material facts as to which it contends there
is no genuine issue to be tried. All material facts set forth in the statement required to be
served by the moving party “will be deemed admitted, for purposes of the motion, unless
controverted as required by this rule.” Local Rule 56.2.
The statutory text of the Title VII anti-retaliation provision, which is applicable to labor
organizations, provides, in full:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for
employment, for an employment agency, or joint
labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or
other training or retraining, including on-the-job training
programs, to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor
organization to discriminate against any member thereof or
applicant for membership, because he has opposed any
practice made an unlawful employment practice by this
subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified,
assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
Page 2 of 4

proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). Retaliation claims are subject to the McDonnell Douglas burdenshifting framework. See Hockman v. Westward Commc’ns, LLC, 407 F.3d 317, 330 (5th
Cir. 2004); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S. Ct. 1817,
1824-25 (1973). “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must establish
that: (1) he participated in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) [the labor organization] took
an adverse employment action against him; and (3) a causal connection exists between
the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” McCoy v. City of Shreveport,
492 F.3d 551, 556–57 (5th Cir. 2007). If the plaintiff sets forth a prima facie case, the
burden then shifts to the labor organization to state a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for
the adverse employment action. See Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601, 607 (5th
Cir. 2005). If the labor organization meets that burden, the plaintiff must establish that
the”permissible reason is actually a pretext for retaliation.” Id. (citation omitted).
Local 568 contends that Bryant failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliation,
or, in the alternative, that Bryant failed to show that Local 568’s actions were pretexts for
retaliation. Specifically, Local 568 asserts that it properly notified Bryant of all hearing
dates and that it did not make the termination decision and had no input into the decision.
Local 568 also notes that Bryant was properly notified of the Grievance Committee’s ruling
and that it does not have input into company decisions related to sick time or option days
for discharged employees. Thus, Local 568 accurately argues that there is no evidence
that it took any adverse action against Bryant. Local 568 further contends that even if
Bryant could show an adverse action, he could not show a causal connection between any
protected activity and the adverse action. Finally, Local 568 asserts that Bryant cannot
Page 3 of 4

show that its actions were pretexts for retaliation.
In lieu of opposing the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, Bryant
instead filed a letter wherein he states that he “will not move forward in [his] attempt to at
least try and recoup some of the things [he] lost. . . .” Record Document 14. He further
states that he is “waving [sic] all rights and future appeals going forward they can have it!”
Id.
In light of the statements by Bryant in his letter and after review of the Motion for
Summary Judgment and the accurate legal arguments made therein as applied to the facts
before the court, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Record
Document 12) filed by Local 568 be and is hereby GRANTED and all claims by Bryant
against Local 568 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A judgment consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall issue
herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 4th day of January, 2019.

Page 4 of 4