United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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
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
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 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.
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.
statutory text of the Title VII anti-retaliation provision,
which is applicable to labor organizations, provides, in
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,
proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.
U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Retaliation claims are subject to
the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting 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).
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
show that its actions were pretexts for retaliation.
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.
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
judgment consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum
Ruling shall issue herewith.
DONE AND SIGNED in ...