Roy Maynor v. Dow Chemical Company , 430 F. App'x 313 ( 2011 )

Case: 10-40771 Document: 00511516574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 22, 2011
No. 10-40771 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
ROY MAYNOR
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:07-CV-504
Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roy Maynor sued his former employer, the Dow Chemical Company, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Maynor alleged,
among other claims, that Dow had fired him in retaliation for complaining about
Dow’s policy regarding training and skills assessments. The jury found that
Maynor had been fired in retaliation for activity protected by the FLSA.
Following the verdict, the district court granted Dow's motion for judgment as
a matter of law on the retaliation claim, finding that there was insufficient
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR . R. 47.5.4.
Case: 10-40771 Document: 00511516574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2011
No. 10-40771
evidence for a reasonable jury to have found that Maynor had been fired because
of his engagement in protected activity. Maynor appealed.
We affirm the district court’s judgment as a matter of law, finding that
Maynor failed to present a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
jury to find retaliation, for the reasons essentially as stated in the district court’s
thorough and well-considered July 19, 2010, Memorandum Opinion. While
Maynor’s oral complaint constituted protected activity under the FLSA,1 the
district court’s judgment as a matter of law was proper because the “facts and
inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly” in favor of Dow’s explanation
of the reasons for Maynor’s termination that “reasonable men could not arrive
at a contrary verdict.” Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.
1969) (en banc), overruled in other respects, Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, 107
F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“A mere scintilla of evidence is
insufficient to present a question for the jury.... There must be a conflict in
substantial evidence to create a jury question.”); see also Bryant v. Compass
Group USA, Inc., 413 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 1027(2006) (same).
AFFIRMED
1
The reasoning of the district court on this point has since been confirmed by the
United States Supreme Court in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131
S.Ct. 1325, 1329 (2011) (finding that the FLSA’s term "filed any complaint" does include
oral as well as written complaints).
2