Cunningham v. Concentrix Solutions Corporation, No. 4:2020cv00661 - Document 72 (E.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Concentrix Solutions Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 58 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/28/2021. (rpc, )

Download PDF

Cunningham v. Concentrix Solutions Corporation Doc. 72 Case 4:20-cv-00661-ALM Document 72 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1534 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION MARK B. CUNNINGHAM v. CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, formerly known as CONCENTRIX CORPORATION § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-661 Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Concentrix Solutions Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #58). Having considered the Motion and briefing, the Court finds the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is an employment discrimination case involving Plaintiff Mark B. Cunningham (“Cunningham”) and Defendant Concentrix Solutions (“Concentrix”). On September 1, 2020, Cunningham filed this action alleging retaliation, race, sex, and age discrimination by Concentrix for not promoting him to Chief Human Resources Officer and terminating his employment (Dkt. #15). Cunningham claims Concentrix did not hire him for the position despite his superior experience and qualifications over the other candidate (Dkt. #15). On June 19, 2021, Concentrix filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #58). On July 19, 2021, Cunningham responded (Dkt. #69). On July 26, 2021, Concentrix replied (Dkt. #71). LEGAL STANDARD 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:20-cv-00661-ALM Document 72 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1535 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 2 Case 4:20-cv-00661-ALM Document 72 Filed 07/28/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1536 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 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). ANALYSIS Concentrix moves for summary judgment. After a careful review of the record and the arguments presented, the Court is not convinced that Concentrix met its burden demonstrating that there is no material issue of fact as to these claims entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion should be denied. . CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that Concentrix Solutions Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #58) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 28th day of July, 2021. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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.