United States Fifth Circuit

Though plaintiff engaged in protected activity, there is no evidence independently suggesting that defendant falsely and selectively fired him because he engaged in such activity, or that such activity was a but-for cause of his termination. Thus, he failed to establish a retaliation claim under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict in his favor. (Substituted opinion)

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/30/2003
• Published 02/16/2004

Judges

• EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:, Before DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE , District Judge.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Robert Louis Blumenfeld,Mendel & Blumenfeld, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Michael Vincent Galo, Jr., Christine Elaine Reinhard, David Montgomery Evans, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.