Henry v. Continental Airlines

10 Citing cases

  1. Farmer v. Mouton

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-16459 (E.D. La. Feb. 28, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Farmer has failed to produce competent summary judgment evidence to raise a material fact issue as to the second prong of her prima facie case of race discrimination that she was qualified for the positions filled by Rye and Storm. Her conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations that she was qualified for these two positions, both of which required a nursing license that she lacked, is inadequate to satisfy the nonmovant's burden on summary judgment. Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 F. App'x 537, 540 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429-30 (5th Cir. 1996)). Thus, Farmer cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination based on failure-to-promote for the positions filled by Rye and Storm because there is no material fact dispute that she was not qualified for the subject positions of RN-Nurse Practice Consultant and RN Compliance Officer. Although Knecht's affidavit states that Farmer did not apply for Rye's or Storm's positions, while Farmer testified that she did apply, this fact dispute is immaterial because Farmer was not qualified per Civil Service requirements for those positions.

  2. Johnson v. Parkwood Behavioral Health Sys.

    551 F. App'x 753 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Affirming summary judgment on disability discrimination claim because plaintiff did not present any evidence that she was replaced by a non-disabled person or treated less favorably than a non-disabled employee

    These type of assertions are inadequate to overcome summary judgment. See Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 F. App'x 537, 540 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc)); see also Milton, 707 F.3d at 572. B. Johnson's Claim of Discrimination Based on Parkwood's Failure to Accommodate

  3. Muslow v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll.

    Civil Action 19-11793 (E.D. La. May. 24, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    neither explain this logic nor present evidence that Skinner did, in fact, determine their rate of pay. Such improbable inferences and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy the nonmovant's burden on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Saunders v. McDonough, 2021 WL 1401762, at *6 (E.D. La. Apr. 14, 2021) (citing Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 Fed.Appx. 537, 540 (5th Cir. 2011)). Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to establish the third factor of the test.

  4. Saunders v. McDonough

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11482 SECTION "R" (5) (E.D. La. Apr. 14, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    To rebut defendant's reason, plaintiff must identify evidence showing that defendant's motives were pretextual. Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 F. App'x 537, 540 (5th Cir. 2011). At summary judgment, "conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy the nonmovant's burden."

  5. Peterson v. Next Prod., LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-14882 SECTION "F" (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    (4) he was treated less favorably than a similarly-situated non-disabled employee.Id. (citation omitted); Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 Fed.Appx. 537, 539 (5th Cir. 2011). If a plaintiff establishes his prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision.

  6. Hill v. Univ. of Miss.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-Q0063-GHD-SAA (N.D. Miss. Feb. 26, 2014)

    These types of assertions are inadequate to overcome summary judgment." See Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 F. App'x 537, 540 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc)); see also Milton, 707 F.3d at 572. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims.

  7. Russell v. a List Staffing

    A-14-CV-0053 SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2014)

    Russell cannot make out a prima facie case of race discrimination in this case because Russell has failed to demonstrate that he was qualified for the Tech Support position in question since he did not have six months of technical support experience as was required for the position. See Henry v. Continental Airlines, 415 F. App'x 537, 539-40 (5th Cir. 2011) (job applicant who was applying for positions on employer's website failed to allege prima facie discrimination claim where he failed to show that he was qualified for the position based on his computer skills). In addition, Russell's own pleadings indicate that the Tech Support positions were ultimately filled by individuals within Russell's protected class, which also precludes Russell from making a prima facie claim of race discrimination under Title VII.

  8. Goswami v. Unocal

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-2953 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2013)   Cited 5 times

    In a failure to hire case, the plaintiff does this by showing that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied for a position for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) he was qualified for the position; (4) he was not selected for the position; and (5) the employer continued to seek applicants for the position or filled the position by someone outside the protected class. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 F. App'x 537, 539 (5th Cir. 2011); Chapman v. Dallas Morning News, L.P., No. 3:06-cv-2211-B, 2008 WL 2185389, at *6 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2008). In ADA cases, the plaintiff must establish that he: (1) suffers from a disability; (2) was qualified for the job; (3) was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) was replaced by a nondisabled person or treated less favorably than nondisabled employees.

  9. Patterson v. Yazoo City, Miss.

    847 F. Supp. 2d 924 (S.D. Miss. 2012)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff could aggregate the number of city employees under the Single Employer Test

    The Defendants counter that, despite the sincerity of Patterson's belief, Patterson has fallen short of meeting his final burden because he has failed to substantiate his claim. See Henry v. Cont'l Airlines, 415 Fed.Appx. 537, 540 (5th Cir.2011) (unpublished). In his deposition, Patterson admitted that he has no “direct evidence” of discrimination but relies on circumstantial evidence to bolster his complaint.

  10. Brown v. Transit Mgmt. of Southeast La. Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION No. 10-2620 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2011)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that two employees were not similarly situated when one employee supervised the other and they worked in two entirely separate departments, being responsible for their own, unrelated duties

    The Fifth Circuit recognizes that selecting a candidate based on the employer's belief as to which applicant is the best qualified for the job is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Henry v. Continental Airlines, 415 Fed. App'x 537, 539-40 (5th Cir. 2011). R. Doc. No. 42-2, p. 20.