Nguyen v. AT&T, No. 23-10277 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-10277 Document: 00516985681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10277 ____________ FILED November 30, 2023 Andrew Nguyen, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus AT&T, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CV-913 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Andrew Nguyen, pro se, appeals a summary judgment denying his claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. In a careful and thorough ten-page opinion, the district judge concluded that Nguyen had failed to create a genuine issue of material fact to show that he was treated differently because of race. The court further found that Nguyen’s suspension and termination were for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10277 Document: 00516985681 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2023 No. 23-10277 The district court’s detailed explanation included, for example, the following: Plaintiff complains of several instances that he believes show that he was treated differently than other non-Asian employees. Those include: being assigned older work vehicles with various issues and not being given a “brand new” vehicle to drive, failure to receive a bucket truck that he requested after returning from leave (even though the doctor had released him with no restrictions for returning to work), being questioned by his supervisor as to the need for certain requested tools/equipment, assignment of a parking slot for his personal vehicle, and disciplinary treatment for minor safety infractions when inspected at work sites. As argued by Defendant, none of these complained-of issues were “adverse employment actions, nor are they timely under Title VII because they are outside the 300-day period for bringing claims in a charge of discrimination. The court also noted that Nguyen was suspended “after making perceived threats of workplace violence to a supervisor.” And the court concluded that, regarding discrimination, “Plaintiff has merely proffered his subjective belief that it must have been because of his race.” There is no error. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its order of February 27, 2023. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
