Blair v. Harris County, No. 4:2018cv02243 - Document 25 (S.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION ON 21 SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Blair v. Harris County Doc. 25 U NITED STATESD ISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF T EXAS United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED Nv eston Blair, March 13, 2020 David J. Bradley, Clerk Plaintiff, CivilA ction H -18-zz43 TCFSU.S H m isCounty, D efendant. Opinion on Summaryludgment iuckgrounl. Nv eston Blairw asam aintenancew orkerforH arrisCounty untilhewas firezin zozz.Hewas45when thecounty hiredhim and j9 when itfiredhim . Blair says that the county fired him Lecause ofhis age,violating the Age Discrimination in EmploymentActofz96z.R'Yecounty saysitfirezBlairfor insubordination afterhissupervisors- D avidBehm andpaulcarter- disciplined him in writing forhissubstandard w ork. Behm told his m anager - D arrell Breedlove - that Blair was not com pleting hisassignm cntsorcooperatingwith othcrw orkers.Behm putBlair on probation with a plan for improving his perform ance at the end of coI6. % en Behm retired inlanuary aozz,Blairwastransferredan8workedunder Carter. Carteralsoform allyreportedtoBreedloveaboutBlair'srepeatedtechnical incompetence,tardiness,poorworkingrelationships,andlack ofaccountaLility. M ilesupervisingBlair,Cartersaw Blairdism antleequipmentandlneunaàleto repairit.Carteralso notedthatBlairorderedthew'rongparttorepairequipm ent. Dockets.Justia.com Inhisperformancereview ofBlair,CarternotedthathedidnotbelievethatBlair wouldimprove. Blair,Carter,and Breedlovem etin Decem ger zolz to discussBlair's work.Based on Carter'spoor review and other complaints ofBlair's errors, Breedlove had prepared another performance improvement plan.R-his plan incluïed a five-day suspension and a requirement that he attend weekly counselingsessionswith Carterforaninety-dayprobationaryperiod.'Fheplan outlinedtheareasin which Blairha2failelto meetexpectations,advisedBlair thathewouldreceiveJaily instructions,anïrequired zaily progressreportsto Carter.It also explained thatBlair could be fired at any point during the probationary period ifhiswork remaineëunsatisfactory. BlairtoldBreezlovean2Carterthathewoulznotreportdailyasrequired under the plan,nor woulz he sign it.Breedlove naturally considered Blair insuborclinate.AfterBlairaffirm ed hisrefusallaterthatafternoon,Breedlove askedhuman resourcestopreparealetteroftermination topresenttoBlairthe nextday based on hisinsubordination. Ratherthanforhissubstandardwork,BlairsaysthathewasfiredFecausc hew asalm ostsixty.H esaysthathe had neverreceived anegativeperform ance review untilhewas approaching sixty.l Blair also says he noticed the county wasreplacing long-term,older employeeswith youngerpeople.Blairallegesthatotherworkers in theirfifties weref'forced''toretire,Lutheadmitsthathedoesnotknow thecircumstances surroundinganyofthefrterm inations.z To show thecounty'sdiscrim ination againstolderworkers,Blaircitesa conversation he overheard while walking àehind a group of seven or eight managersin N ovemberaozz.Hesaysheheardthosemanagerssay:''ltseems likewedonothaveenough young bloods,''anJ ''W eneed to getsom eyounger 'Compl.?. 2BlairDep.4: t-4),45-48,50-53. . peopleinherewhoknow how tohandlethis.''3Hefurthercomplainsthatyoung maintenanceworkersreferredto him as''olztimer''and ''olddog.'' 2. D fscrfmfnutfon. To succeelwith hisagediscrim ination claim ,Blairmustshow thathe wasfiredFecauseofhisage.' T' hecountysaysitfiredBlairforhisconsistentlybad workanïattendance,which isalegitimatereason fortermination.4Becausethe county hasarticulated alegitim atereason forfiring Blair,Blairm ustshow that the county's proffered reason for term inating him w as m erely a pretext for ziscrimination.s HarrisCountysaysitfiredBlairforinsubordination when herefusedto complywiththetermsofhisperformanceimprovementplan - alegitim ateand nondiscrim inatory reason thathasnotbeen shown tobeapretext. 80th Behm andCarterhad documentedBlair'slow-qualitywork.Behm reported to BreedlovethatBlairwasnotcompleting assignm entsorworking cohesivelywith hispeers.Afterthefirstperformanceimprovementplan failez, CarterwitnessedrepeatedinstancesofBlair'sinasilitytofinishhisassignments an2 histechnicalincompetence.Nvhen Cartercomplainez toBreedloveabout Blair,Breedlovecreated asecond performanceimprovem entplan.Carteran8 Brcedlove met with Blair to discuss Carter's evaluation and Breedlove's perform anceplan forhim ,butBlairrefused to sign orcom ply with it. Basedon thisfmmeïiate,flatrefusalofaprecise,directorder-preceded lnyayearoffailezeffortstogetBlairtoimprovehisqualityandquantityofwork Blair was fired.Blair has notshown anything thatwould suggestthatthe - 3BlairAff.a. 4S:cAllrup v.CJ,lderu,az4 F.ydz8a,a26(5thCi r.aool). . 5, S':cMcDcnnel!DouglusCcrp.v.Grcen,4llU.S.79z(I9z3);RCCJv.NcopostLlSA,înc.,zoIF.3d 434,440(5thCir.coza). county was hostile to him an2 firez him for his age,rather than for his consistentlyba2workafterm onthsofattemptedrehabilitation.Hewashiredas aprotectcïperson overforty.People- and theirwork- changeovertime. lfthemanagerswho Jecided tofireBlaircommented on workers'ages, thosecommentsmusthavedem onstrated discriminatoryanim ustoBlairtol,e actionable.Takingastnzethatthemanagersmadethcstatem entsthatBlairsays heoverheard,theydonotshow animusorpretext-onlythatthem anagerswant peoplewhocan dotherequiredworkwell.Further,comm entsm adelnyyounger coworkerswith no authority overBlairare irrelevant.N am es casually applied am ong workersarehardly county policy. Blairhasonlyhissubjectivebelicfofdiscrimination.Hesaysthatother workerswereforcedtoretireduetoage,lnutitisan assumptionwithoutsupport. Termination itsdfisnotevidenceofdiscrimination.Blafrhasnotrefutedthe county'sthoroughly docum ented explanation forhistermination. Cbnclusfcn. Blaircannotshow thatH arrisCountydiscrim inatedagainsthim .H edoes nothave facts thathis refusalto obey orders an2 lapsesin competence and attendanceimprovedafteraprolongedattemptbythecountytorehasilitatehim. R' 'he county docum ented Blair's poor work perform ance. Blair's supervisorstriedtohelphim ,Futhcrefusedtocooperate.Blair'sunsubstantiated assertionsofageziscriminationarenotsufficienttorebutthecounty'slegitimate reason forfiring him .W eston Blairwilltake nothing from H arrisCounty. Signedon M arch 13 , zozo,atH ouston,T exas. Lynn N .H ughes UnitedStatesDistrictludge
]]>
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.
