Morrison v. PFSweb, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 11/9/2017. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00932
MERMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is PFSweb, Inc.’s (“PFS”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #17).
After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds the motion should be denied.
On December 7, 2016, Sarah Morrison (“Morrison”) filed her Complaint against PFS,
alleging sex-based discrimination and retaliation (Dkt. #1). PFS filed its Answer on January 5,
2017 (Dkt. #4). On August 18, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
#17). Plaintiff filed her Response on September 8, 2017 (Dkt. #21). On September 18, 2017,
Defendant filed its Reply (Dkt. #23). Plaintiff filed her Sur-Reply on September 26, 2017 (Dkt.
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims
or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper
under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when “the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. The trial court
“must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary
judgment.” Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of its
motion and identifying “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials” that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant bears the
burden of proof on a claim or defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come
forward with evidence that establishes “beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the
claim or defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the
nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by showing that there
is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v.
Dall. Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its
burden, the nonmovant must “respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth
particular facts indicating there is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248–49). A nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a
properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of
material facts, unsworn allegations, or arguments and assertions in briefs or legal memoranda will
not suffice to carry this burden. Rather, the Court requires “significant probative evidence” from
the nonmovant to dismiss a request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust
Litig., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ferguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111,
114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The Court must consider all of the evidence but “refrain from making any
credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476
F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007).
The relevant pleadings reveal a stark dispute of material fact. Morrison claims that sexdiscrimination and retaliation by her superior were the root and core and cause of her termination.
Conversely, PFS claims that Morrison’s poor performance, inappropriate workplace behavior, and
non-compliance with her Performance Improvement Plan led to her firing. Even the content of
the private conversation between Morrison and her supervisor is at issue. The resolution of these
factual disputes will decide this lawsuit. Thus, a genuine dispute of material fact bars the Court
from granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #17) is
SIGNED this 9th day of November, 2017.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?