Babu K. Thomas, an Asian-American man born in 1963, worked for the United States Postal Service from 2000 until his termination in 2018. Thomas alleged that he was discriminated against based on race, age, and disability, and that he was retaliated against for filing EEO complaints and requesting accommodations. The dispute centered on Thomas's extended leave of absence starting in August 2014. Despite being granted a medical accommodation in 2010, Thomas failed to abide by its conditions and subsequently stopped reporting to work. The USPS repeatedly requested medical documentation to justify his absence, but Thomas declined to provide it during an investigative interview in 2018. After the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue, Thomas filed suit in federal district court. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Thomas's claims with prejudice and awarding costs to the defendants. Thomas appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to compel discovery, the summary judgment on his discrimination and retaliation claims, and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, affirming that there were no genuine disputes of material fact. First, regarding the disability discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the court found Thomas failed to prove he was an 'individual with a disability.' Although Thomas alleged diagnoses of diabetes and depression, his own letters only described minor inconveniences like using an umbrella in the sun or checking blood sugar. The court noted that Thomas continued to work for years after these diagnoses, meaning he did not demonstrate that his impairments substantially limited major life activities. Second, on the race discrimination claim, the court held that Thomas's proposed comparators were not similarly situated. He provided no evidence that they shared the same supervisor, had their employment status determined by the same person, or had comparable violation histories. His other proposed comparators lacked any record evidence. Third, for the age discrimination claim, Thomas admitted he did not identify the names of the younger employees who replaced him or provide competent evidence that he was replaced by someone outside his protected class. Fourth, regarding retaliation, the court accepted that the USPS had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination: Thomas's three-year absence and failure to provide necessary medical information. The court emphasized that an employee's failure to show up for work is a legitimate reason for firing. Thomas failed to rebut this reason or show that the adverse action would not have occurred 'but for' his protected conduct. Finally, the court addressed the hostile work environment claim, noting that the EEO only accepted claims for harassment beginning in December 2017, but Thomas's last day of work was August 2014. He presented no evidence of harassment after his last day. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to compel discovery as untimely and the award of costs to the defendants, finding no abuse of discretion.
The decision affirms the dismissal of Thomas's employment discrimination claims with prejudice, meaning he cannot refile the same claims. It reinforces the requirement for federal employees to provide sufficient medical documentation to justify extended leave when claiming disability accommodations. The ruling also clarifies that plaintiffs must provide specific record evidence to prove comparators are similarly situated in race and age discrimination cases. The district court's award of costs to the defendants stands, and the procedural posture remains closed unless new evidence emerges that was not available during the summary judgment phase.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download