United Steel, Paper and Forest v. Anderson

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2021

No. 20-50501

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service

Workers International Union; United Steel Workers

International Union; Bexar County Probation Officers

Association United Steelworkers Local 9528; Trisha

Cantu, as next friend of J.M.C., a minor; Emily Ann Caroline

Castilleja,

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Jarvis Anderson; Brian Brady,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CV-1242

Before Jolly, Duncan, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge:

Sergio Castilleja’s children and various unions appeal the summary

judgment dismissal of their claims that Castilleja was fired for engaging in

union-related activities in violation of the First Amendment, the Equal

Protection Clause, and Texas law. We affirm.

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

I. Background

A. Facts

Castilleja spent fifteen years as a community service officer (“CSO”),

or probation officer, for the Bexar County Community Supervision and

Corrections Department (“CSCD”).1 His career was marked by multiple

reprimands and termination warnings. When the events at issue here took

place, Castilleja was on “zero tolerance,” meaning he could be immediately

fired for any infraction of CSCD policies.

After Castilleja was transferred in December 2014, his new manager,

John Escalante, suspected Castilleja was violating overtime rules. An

investigation by Assistant Chief Sloane Kelly confirmed that was true:

Castilleja was routinely taking unapproved overtime and using his work

computer to send union-related emails. Although she recommended to Chief

Jarvis Anderson that he be fired, Castilleja only received counseling and was

put on a “performance improvement plan” in April 2015.

In Castilleja’s October 2015 evaluation, Escalante rated him

“satisfactory” overall but gave him the lowest rating in multiple categories,

including “[f]ollow[ing] departmental policies and procedures,” and noted

numerous areas needing improvement, including the key area of reporting

probationers’ violations to the court. Still, Escalante praised Castilleja’s

work and described him as “experienced, wise, intelligent, and

knowledgeable” and “an asset.”

On January 28, 2016, Castilleja was sworn in as president of the Bexar

County Probation Officers Association (“BCPOA”). 2 According to

1

Castilleja passed away during the litigation. The district court allowed

substitution of Emily Ann Caroline Castilleja, Castilleja’s adult daughter, and Trisha

Cantu, as next friend of Castilleja’s minor daughter. We continue to refer to the plaintiff-

appellant as Castilleja.

2

He had served in the BCPOA since 2007.

2

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

Castilleja, the next day Anderson asked him to stop the union’s second no-

confidence petition against Anderson, but Castilleja refused. The previous

BCPOA president, Sherri Simonelli, recalled that she told Anderson around

that time that a no-confidence vote was imminent and that Anderson

responded he would “go after Sergio hard” and he “hated” him. Anderson

denied saying this.

In February 2016, Castilleja switched units with another CSO,

Lindsey Fermin, who found “serious case management issues” in

Castilleja’s work that required notifying the court of unreported violations.

This was reported to then-Assistant Chief Brian Brady. Around that time,

Anderson himself became aware of a “troubling” case Castilleja had

managed and, as a result, ordered an audit of 100 of Castilleja’s former cases.

In May, Escalante reviewed some of those cases, revealing the most

“egregious” case management deficiencies he had ever seen. Had Escalante

known about them, he said, he would not have commended Castilleja in the

2015 review. Brady’s own review revealed Castilleja’s “blatant disregard to

instructions from the judges” as well as “gross negligence in [case]

management,” “documentation of errors,” “reporting of violations to the

courts,” and “total disregard for the protection of the community.”3 He

found similar problems in Castilleja’s new cases. As a result, Brady

recommended firing Castilleja. He later explained that, as an experienced

officer, Castilleja’s disregard of “the basic ten[e]ts of case management”

made his violations especially damning.

3

For example, in a DWI case where the court required use of an ignition interlock,

Castilleja unilaterally permitted urinalysis tests instead, thus allowing the probationer to

drink and drive. Castilleja also failed to report two positive alcohol tests, notifying the court

only after the probationer was arrested for a third DWI. In another case, Castilleja

permitted a probationer to avoid reporting for sixteen months and travel to Austin for the

school year without court approval. The probationer reported using alcohol and drugs

thirty to forty times while unsupervised.

3

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

On August 5, 2016, Castilleja received a proposed adverse action

(“PAA”) recommending termination. The PAA cited not only Castilleja’s

numerous case management and policy violations, but also two instances of

conducting union business while at work, and one use of work email to send

union-related emails. Castilleja appealed.

Meanwhile, on November 9, 2016, the BCPOA issued a no-

confidence petition calling for Anderson’s removal.

On November 15, 2016, Anderson heard Castilleja’s appeal. When

confronted with the case management violations, Castilleja explained he was

used to having “discretion and working things out,” acknowledged his failure

to respect the court’s authority, and insisted he “never meant to not follow

the policy.” Asked if he would report violations in the future, Castilleja said

he would “try [his] best.” Anderson fired Castilleja on January 3, 2017. The

final decision notice cited the evidence presented in the PAA and called

“unacceptable” Castilleja’s “questionable ethical professional conduct”

and “inability to comply” with CSCD policies and procedures.

B. Procedural History

On December 7, 2017, Castilleja—along with the BCPOA and its

affiliate the United Steelworkers International Union (collectively, the

“Unions”)4—sued Anderson and Brady in federal court in their individual

and official capacities. The plaintiffs generally claimed Castilleja was fired in

retaliation for his union-related speech and association in violation of the

First Amendment, federal law, and Texas law.

Specifically, the operative complaint5 asserted: (1) Castilleja’s First

Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anderson and

Brady; (2) the Unions’ First Amendment claim against Anderson; (3) the

4

Unless otherwise indicated, our references to Castilleja include the Unions.

5

This is the first amended complaint, filed in June 2018.

4

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

Unions’ equal-protection claims against Anderson; (4) Castilleja’s claim

under Texas Labor Code § 101.301 against Anderson and Brady; and (5) a 42

U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim against Anderson and Brady.6 Plaintiffs

sought injunctive relief and damages. The parties filed cross motions for

summary judgment. The district court granted Anderson and Brady’s

motion, dismissing all claims against them. This appeal followed.

II. Standard of Review

We review a summary judgment de novo. Patel v. Tex. Tech Univ., 941

F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate “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).

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant,

“drawing all justifiable inferences in the non-movant’s favor.” Renwick v.

PNK Lake Charles, L.L.C., 901 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

III. Discussion

A. First Amendment Retaliation

We first consider Castilleja’s claim that he was fired in retaliation for

his union-related speech and activity, in violation of the First Amendment.

Our precedent articulates slightly different standards depending on whether

a retaliation claim turns on a plaintiff’s union-related speech or association.7

Both standards, however, require a causal relationship between the protected

6

Castilleja does not appeal the dismissal of the § 1985 claim.

7

Compare Anderson v. Valdez, 845 F.3d 580, 590 (5th Cir. 2016) (speech-related

claim requires showing: (1) plaintiff suffered adverse employment action; (2) plaintiff spoke

on matter of public concern; (3) plaintiff’s speech interest outweighed government’s

efficiency interest; and (4) speech “precipitated” adverse action (citation omitted)), with

Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2002) (union-association claim requires

showing: (1) plaintiff suffered adverse employment action; (2) plaintiff’s associational

interest outweighed government’s efficiency interest; and (3) association was “a

substantial or motivating factor” in adverse action (citations omitted)).

5

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

activity and the adverse employment action. See, e.g., Garza v. Escobar, 972

F.3d 721, 728–29 (5th Cir. 2020) (adverse action must have been “because

of” speech (citation omitted)); Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir.

2002) (union association must have been “a substantial or motivating factor”

in adverse action (citations omitted)). If a plaintiff makes this showing, both

claims permit an affirmative defense, known as the “Mt. Healthy defense”:

the employer may avoid liability by “showing a legitimate reason for which it

would have discharged the employee even in the absence of his protected

conduct.” Coughlin v. Lee, 946 F.2d 1152, 1157 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Mt.

Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977)).

Finally, the plaintiff may rebut by showing the employer’s proffered reason

is pretextual. Haverda v. Hays County, 723 F.3d 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2013).

The district court assumed Castilleja presented sufficient evidence of

causation. But it granted Anderson summary judgment based on the Mt.

Healthy defense—i.e., that Anderson had legitimate reasons to fire Castilleja

apart from his protected conduct, reasons Castilleja failed to show were

pretextual. Castilleja argues this was error, but we agree with the district

court.

First, the evidence shows without dispute that Anderson had valid

reasons for firing Castilleja. Anderson emphasizes three that are well-

supported by the record: (1) Castilleja’s mismanagement of numerous cases

in violation of CSCD policies after incurring multiple sanctions, including

being placed on zero tolerance8 and being disciplined for repeated overtime

violations; (2) the “egregious” nature of Castilleja’s case management

8

When asked at oral argument about “zero tolerance,” Castilleja’s counsel

claimed the policy could be understood to cover only offenses like the one that triggered its

application to Castilleja (a physical altercation). O.A. Rec. at 6:43–8:00. The record

contradicts this, however. The policy stated Castilleja could be “immediately” fired for

“any infraction of [CSCD’s] administrative policies and case management procedures.”

And the record shows Castilleja admitted he understood that.

6

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

violations, as attested by multiple witnesses including Fermin, Escalante, and

Brady; and (3) Castilleja’s insistence that his “discretion[ary]” style

somehow excused those violations. Moreover, those reasons were reflected

in the PAA, in Brady’s firing recommendation, and in Anderson’s final

decision notice. See Gerhart v. Hayes, 217 F.3d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 2000) (Mt.

Healthy defense established where termination letter relied on employer’s

proffered, permissible reasons). We therefore agree Anderson showed

undisputedly that he had valid reasons to fire Castilleja apart from any

protected activity.9

Second, we disagree with Castilleja that the evidence raised a genuine

dispute that the reasons given for his firing were pretextual. For instance,

Castilleja points to Escalante’s “glowing” comments in his 2015 review. But

this overlooks that the same review gave Castilleja the lowest rating in

multiple categories and stated he needed improvement in the key area of

reporting violations to the court. Moreover, Escalante wrote the review

before learning of Castilleja’s worst lapses and testified that, had he known

about them, he would not have made the positive comments.10 Castilleja also

claims he was treated differently from other officers with similar records. But

none of the officers Castilleja identifies had disciplinary histories as bad as

his, none had Castilleja’s experience, and none was on zero tolerance.

Moreover, the evidence does not even show Anderson or Brady was aware of

9

This evidence is at least as substantial as evidence previously found sufficient on

summary judgment to satisfy Mt. Healthy. See Beattie v. Madison Cnty. Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d

595, 604 (5th Cir. 2001) (school board members’ testimony that they would have fired

teacher based on complaints she was rude to students, parents, and teachers); Gerhart, 201

F.3d at 322 (evidence that employee failed in assigned duty to improve funding).

10

Castilleja asserts the “surreptitious” nature of the audits that uncovered these

lapses shows pretext. But he identifies no evidence suggesting the audits were anything

other than a rational response to deficiencies discovered in Castilleja’s cases by Anderson

and Fermin.

7

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

these other officers and failed to discipline them.11 Cf. Jordan v. Ector County,

516 F.3d 290, 300 (5th Cir. 2008) (pretext shown when other employees

“engaged in similar conduct without being disciplined”). Finally, Castilleja

claims his firing diverged from CSCD practice of first offering training or

intermediate sanctions. But even if pretext could be inferred from such

evidence,12 the record does not show CSCD’s practice was to offer more

training or lesser sanctions in a situation like this—where an experienced

officer, despite repeated discipline and warnings, persisted in committing

serious violations. In sum, we conclude the evidence did not raise a genuine

dispute that Anderson’s reasons for firing Castilleja were pretextual.

That conclusion disposes of Castilleja’s First Amendment retaliation

claim against Anderson in his official capacity for injunctive relief. It also

disposes of the same claim against Anderson and Brady in their individual

capacities for damages. Because we have found no First Amendment

violation arising from Castilleja’s firing, Anderson and Brady necessarily

merit qualified immunity on this claim.13 Finally, similar reasoning also

11

Manager Sherri Simonelli’s declaration testimony that Castilleja’s errors were

“common for probation officers” is similarly inadequate without evidence those other

CSOs had comparable histories and experience levels, faced the threat of zero tolerance,

and yet received different treatment.

12

Our precedent in the employment discrimination context suggests that

procedural departures alone cannot support an inference of pretext. See, e.g., EEOC v. Tex.

Instruments, Inc., 100 F.3d 1173, 1183 (5th Cir. 1996) (replacing seniority policy to reduce

workforce and promote efficiency did not create an inference of age discrimination without

“clear nexus to discrimination”); Risher v. Aldridge, 889 F.2d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 1989) (no

inference of pretext from failure to use required criteria in appraising plaintiff’s

performance without evidence she was evaluated in a discriminatory way); Moore v. Eli Lilly

& Co., 990 F.2d 812, 819 (5th Cir. 1993) (rejecting argument that failure to follow

termination procedures established pretext under the ADEA).

13

See, e.g., Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (to overcome qualified

immunity, plaintiff must show that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional

right,” and (2) “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct”

(citation omitted)). The district court reached the same conclusion by relying on the

“clearly established law” prong of qualified immunity. But we may rely on either prong,

ibid., and we “may affirm summary judgment on any ground raised below and supported

8

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

dispatches the Unions’ First Amendment retaliation claim. The sole basis for

the Unions’ claim is that Castilleja was fired in retaliation for his union-

related speech and association. See Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 819 n.13

(1974) (because “the union can act only through its members,” it may bring

a First Amendment claim if “its members were subject to . . . intimidation for

engaging in union organizational activity”). Because Castilleja’s claim fails,

the district court also properly dismissed the Unions’ claim.

B. Equal Protection

The Unions complain that the district court erred by dismissing on

summary judgment their class-of-one equal-protection claim against

Anderson. That claim rests on allegations that Anderson treated them less

favorably than other similarly situated organizations (specifically, the Texas

Probation Association and the Combined Law Enforcement Association of

Texas (“CLEAT”)) by penalizing Castilleja for conducting BCPOA

business on work time and with work equipment.

“A class-of-one equal-protection claim lies where the plaintiff alleges

that it has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated

and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Integrity

Collision Ctr. v. City of Fulshear, 837 F.3d 581, 586 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)) (cleaned up). We

have recognized, however, that “[i]n Engquist [v. Oregon Department of

Agriculture], the [Supreme] Court held that class-of-one equal-protection

claims are inapposite in the context of discretionary public-employment

decisions.” Ibid. (citing Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008)).

The district court correctly concluded that Engquist precludes the Unions’

class-of-one claim, which attacks a public entity’s discretionary decision

about employee discipline.

by the record.” See, e.g., Ballard v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., 678 F.3d 360, 365 (5th Cir. 2012)

(citation omitted).

9

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

The Unions argue that Engquist and Integrity Collision concern only

hiring and firing, not the access-to-facilities issue presented here. We

disagree. Engquist specified that class-of-one claims have “no application in

the public employment context,” which covers “not only hiring and firing

decisions,” but also “any personnel action, such as promotion, salary, or

work assignments.” 553 US. at 607–08 (emphasis added); see also Integrity

Collision, 837 F.3d at 587 (applying Engquist to city’s purchase of tow

services, which involved “subjective, individualized assessments” of

“reputation, personal experience”). The Unions’ challenge to how the

facilities policy was applied is a “claim of differential treatment” the

Supreme Court has refused to recognize. Engquist, 553 U.S. at 608. The

district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Unions’

equal-protection claim.14

C. Texas Labor Code

Lastly, we turn to Castilleja’s argument that the district court wrongly

dismissed his claims under Texas Labor Code § 101.301 based on its finding

Brady and Anderson entitled to official immunity under Texas law.15

Castilleja’s briefing on this point is anemic: it states in a single sentence,

without citing authority, that Anderson and Brady “were not acting in good

faith or within the scope of their duties . . . because Castilleja was terminated

because of his union activities.” Castilleja has forfeited this challenge by

14

We therefore need not consider the district court’s alternative holdings that the

Texas Probation Association was not similarly situated to BCPOA and that the evidence

did not show official approval of CLEAT’s use of facilities.

15

Texas law authorizes a damages action against an employer for violating a

person’s right to work, including his right to be “free from threats, force, intimidation, or

coercion.” Tex. Lab. Code § 101.301(a)–(c). To merit official immunity from such

claims, officials must show their actions were (1) “discretionary duties,” (2) performed in

“good faith,” (3) “within the scope of their authority.” City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883

S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex. 1994).

10

Case: 20-50501 Document: 00515981597 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/17/2021

No. 20-50501

failing to brief it adequately on appeal. See Rutherford v. Harris County, 197

F.3d 173, 193 (5th Cir. 1999).

IV. Conclusion

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

11