Li v. Verizon Wireless Texas LLC et al

Filing 89

ORDER ACCEPTING 82 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 5/15/2020) (twd)

Case 3:17-cv-02249-X-BH Document 89 Filed 05/15/20

Page 1 of 3 PageID 3203

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
QIANG LI,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§
§
VERIZON WIRLESS TEXAS, LLC, et §
al.
§
§
Defendants.
§

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2249-X-BH

Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
After reviewing de novo all relevant matters of record in this case, including
the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation [Doc. No. 82] of the United States
Magistrate Judge and plaintiff Qing Li’s Objection [Doc. No. 86], in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the
Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted
as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
The Magistrate Judge found and concluded that defendants Verizon Wireless,
Texas, LLC, and Satya Sharma are entitled to summary judgment on Li’s Title VII
and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims, and on Li’s state law
defamation claims. For Li’s Title VII and Section 1981 discrimination claims, the
Magistrate Judge found that Li failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination
and cited no evidence in the record to support his allegation that similarly situated
individuals outside of his protected class were treated differently than he was treated.
1

Case 3:17-cv-02249-X-BH Document 89 Filed 05/15/20

Page 2 of 3 PageID 3204

For Li’s Title VII retaliation claims, the Magistrate Judge found that while Li
adequately asserted a protected activity to form the basis of a Title VII retaliation
claim, Li failed to point to evidence (other than temporal proximity and his personal
belief) that established a causal connection between such protected activity and an
alleged adverse employment action. As to Li’s state law defamation claim, Li has
failed to contest the defendants’ assertion in their summary judgment motion that
Li’s claims are untimely and meritless, and Li failed to identify evidence that
supports his claim, and therefore has not shown that there is a genuine dispute as to
material fact with respect to his defamation claim.
Li

objected

to

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation. But Li did not offer a specific objection to any portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s order.

Li mostly restated his arguments in opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In his objection, Li did add that his peers
and supervisor would sometimes speak in a foreign language to each other, and he
made several conclusory allegations that Sharma’s deposition was “clearly deceitful”
and that the investigation based on Li’s complaint about discrimination was a
“sham.”1 But Li nonetheless failed to point to specific evidence in the record to
support his allegations in any way that would warrant a finding in his favor.

E.g., Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate, at 4 & 7 [Doc. No. 86]. The EEOC has stated that a rule prohibiting foreign languages in
the workplace at all times is a “burdensome term and condition of employment.” The EEOC indicated
it would “closely scrutinize” such a rule and “presume that [it] violates Title VII.” 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7.
1

2

Case 3:17-cv-02249-X-BH Document 89 Filed 05/15/20

Page 3 of 3 PageID 3205

Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. No. 65]. By separate judgment, the Court will DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
Li’s claims against the defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of May 2020.

___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3