Unpublished Fifth Circuit Clarifies: Summary-Judgment Proof, Timely Discovery Motions, and Taxable Deposition Costs in Federal EEO Discrimination Litigation

I. Introduction

In Thomas v. Steiner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Summary Calendar, per curiam, unpublished) affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a former USPS employee, Babu K. Thomas, on claims of race and age discrimination, disability discrimination/failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The court also affirmed denial of Thomas’s motion to compel discovery, denial of reconsideration, and the taxation of costs (including deposition costs).

Thomas—an Asian-American man born in 1963—had a long employment history with USPS, including documented performance issues and a prior medical accommodation limiting his workday to eight hours. After initiating EEO activity in 2014, he stopped reporting to work in August 2014. USPS repeatedly sought medical documentation supporting his continued absence; Thomas declined to provide it and was terminated effective March 23, 2018. After an EEOC right-to-sue letter issued in 2022, he sued in federal court in 2022.

The appeal centered on three recurring federal employment-litigation fault lines: (1) whether discovery disputes can forestall summary judgment when the plaintiff’s motion to compel is late and noncompliant with local rules; (2) the evidentiary showing required at summary judgment to establish core elements of discrimination and retaliation claims; and (3) what costs a prevailing defendant may recover under Rule 54(d)(1), particularly when a deposition was not cited in summary judgment briefing.

II. Summary of the Opinion

• Discovery: The Fifth Circuit held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas’s motion to compel as untimely (filed months after the supplementation deadline) and noncompliant with the local “meet and confer” requirement.
• Disability discrimination / failure to accommodate: Summary judgment was affirmed because Thomas did not raise a genuine dispute that he was an “individual with a disability” under the Rehabilitation Act—he offered only minimal, non-specific statements about diabetes/depression and did not show a substantial limitation of major life activities.
• Race discrimination: Summary judgment was affirmed because Thomas failed to produce competent evidence that similarly situated comparators outside the protected class were treated more favorably (missing proof of same supervisor/decisionmaker and comparable violation histories, and lacking record evidence for additional comparators).
• Age discrimination: Summary judgment was affirmed because Thomas presented no competent evidence he was replaced by younger employees (he could not identify them and had no supporting proof).
• Retaliation: Even assuming a prima facie case, USPS stated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason—multi-year absence and refusal to provide requested medical documentation—and Thomas failed to create a fact issue on pretext or but-for causation.
• Hostile work environment: Summary judgment was affirmed because the administrative claim accepted harassment only “[b]eginning on or about December of 2017,” but Thomas’s record evidence related to events no later than August 2014 (his last day at work), leaving no evidence within the accepted time frame.
• New claims on appeal: The court declined to consider “just cause” and grievance/arbitration-process complaints raised for the first time on appeal.
• Reconsideration: Affirmed denial of reconsideration because Thomas showed only disagreement, not manifest error or newly discovered evidence.
• Costs: Affirmed taxation of deposition-related costs; a deposition can be “necessarily obtained for use in the case” even if not introduced into evidence or cited in summary judgment briefing.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited (and How They Drove the Result)

1. Discovery discretion and untimeliness

• McCreary v. Richardson and Williamson v. USDA supplied the governing appellate standard: discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and reversed only if “arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.” This deferential lens made it difficult for Thomas to overturn the denial of his motion to compel.
• Brand Servs., L.L.C. v. Irex Corp. provided the key procedural principle applied to the facts: a district court may deny as untimely a motion filed after the discovery deadline. The panel used this authority to validate the district court’s reliance on the November 14, 2024 supplementation deadline versus Thomas’s February 7, 2025 filing.

2. Summary judgment framework and evidentiary burden

• Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc. anchored de novo appellate review of summary judgment.
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett supplied the central evidentiary rule: once the movant meets its burden, the nonmovant must go beyond pleadings and designate “specific facts” in admissible summary-judgment materials. The court repeatedly relied on this principle to reject Thomas’s comparator assertions and replacement-by-younger-employee assertions as unsupported.

3. Rehabilitation Act exclusivity and the definition of disability

• Dark v. Potter established that the Rehabilitation Act is the exclusive remedy for federal employees’ workplace disability discrimination claims, framing the claim and preventing alternative statutory routes.
• Hileman v. City of Dallas provided the elements of a Rehabilitation Act claim and the statutory definition of “individual with a disability.” The panel applied Hileman to conclude Thomas’s proof did not show a “substantial limitation.”
• Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding supplied examples of “major life activities,” which the panel used as the measuring stick for the missing evidentiary showing.

4. Race discrimination: prima facie elements and comparators

• Septimus v. Univ. of Hous. set out the prima facie case elements (including replacement or favorable treatment of similarly situated comparators).
• West v. City of Hous. (quoting Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co.) supplied the Fifth Circuit’s “similarly situated” comparator criteria: same job/responsibilities, same supervisor/decisionmaker, and comparable violation histories. The court used this test to hold that Thomas’s pre-complaint counseling form statements did not establish comparator similarity (missing same supervisor and violation history evidence), and that the remaining comparator claims lacked any record support.

5. Age discrimination: replacement and causation framing

• Allen v. U.S. Postal Serv. (quoting Jackson v. Cal-W. Packaging Corp.) established the prima facie elements for age discrimination, including the requirement of proof of replacement by someone younger/outside the protected class or other evidence that discharge occurred because of age. The panel applied this directly to find Thomas’s unsupported assertion about “much younger” employees insufficient.

6. Retaliation: burden shifting and “but-for” causation

• Davis v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit provided the prima facie retaliation elements.
• Septimus v. Univ. of Hous. supplied the burden-shifting structure (legitimate reason and pretext).
• Septimus v. Univ. of Hous. also provided the controlling causation rule for Title VII retaliation in this opinion: “but-for” causation.
• Amedee v. Shell Chem., L.P. (quoting Trautman v. Time Warner Cable Tex., L.L.C.) supplied a concrete application: failure to show up for work is a legitimate reason for termination. This precedent made USPS’s justification legally sufficient, shifting the decisive question to whether Thomas produced evidence of pretext and but-for causation—which the court found he did not.

7. Hostile work environment elements and time framing

• Ramsey v. Henderson, Thompson v. Microsoft Corp., and Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc. supplied the elements for hostile work environment claims across race, disability, and age theories. The court did not reject the elements; it rejected the proof—specifically, the mismatch between the EEO-accepted time window (beginning December 2017) and the evidence (ending August 2014).

8. Raising new issues on appeal

• Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. supplied the waiver/forfeiture rule: appellate courts will not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. This disposed of Thomas’s “just cause” and grievance/arbitration complaints.

9. Pro se construction and Rule 59(e) reconsideration standards

• Brown v. Sudduth supported liberal construction of pro se briefing, enabling the court to treat Thomas’s “factual errors” argument as an appeal of the reconsideration denial.
• In re La. Crawfish Producers established abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 59 reconsideration rulings.
• Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc. (quoting Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp.) defined the Rule 59(e) threshold: manifest error of law/fact or newly discovered evidence, and not a vehicle for arguments that could have been made earlier. The panel used this to affirm because Thomas showed only disagreement.

10. Costs and depositions not cited in briefing

• Pacheco v. Mineta supplied the “strong presumption” in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party and the abuse-of-discretion standard to overturn.
• United States ex rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C. (quoting Fogleman v. ARAMCO) provided the dispositive costs rule: a deposition need not be introduced into evidence to be “necessarily obtained for use in the case,” and the district court has “great latitude” in that factual determination. This foreclosed Thomas’s argument that deposition costs were improper merely because the deposition was not cited in summary judgment papers.

B. Legal Reasoning (What the Court Actually Did)

• Procedure first, then merits: The court addressed discovery rulings before summary judgment, but applied deferential review and emphasized deadlines and local-rule compliance, thereby preventing the discovery dispute from derailing the merits disposition.
• Element-by-element failure at summary judgment: The panel did not need to resolve close factual disputes; it found missing evidence on essential elements:
  • Rehabilitation Act disability status: no substantial limitation evidence.
  • Race discrimination: no competent comparator evidence satisfying Fifth Circuit similarity requirements.
  • Age discrimination: no competent evidence of replacement by younger workers (or other age-based discharge evidence).
  • Retaliation: legitimate reason shown; no pretext/but-for rebuttal offered.
  • Hostile work environment: no evidence within the administratively accepted time frame.
• Administrative framing matters: The hostile-work-environment claim failed largely because the EEO accepted the claim only for harassment beginning around December 2017, while Thomas’s evidentiary submissions concerned earlier periods when he still worked (ending August 2014).
• Appellate boundaries: The court enforced issue-preservation rules, refusing to entertain newly minted theories about “just cause” or arbitration irregularities.
• Costs doctrine applied pragmatically: The court treated a plaintiff’s deposition as ordinarily “for use in the case,” even if not ultimately cited, and deferred to the district court’s assessment.

C. Impact (Practical Effects on Future Cases)

• Discovery enforcement: The decision underscores that late motions to compel—especially those filed after court-ordered supplementation deadlines—face steep odds on appeal due to discretion and deadline enforcement. Plaintiffs who hope to resist summary judgment on “incomplete discovery” grounds must act within the scheduling order and create a record of timely, rule-compliant efforts.
• Proof over narrative at summary judgment: The opinion reinforces that assertions (e.g., “my route went to younger workers,” “others got accommodations”) must be supported by competent record evidence, not forms, beliefs, or uncorroborated statements lacking the comparator details Fifth Circuit law requires.
• Retaliation claims require a pretext response: Even where protected activity is shown, once the employer articulates a legitimate reason (here, prolonged absence and failure to provide documentation), plaintiffs must squarely address that reason with evidence of pretext and but-for causation.
• Hostile work environment claims are time-sensitive: Where the administrative process narrows the actionable period, plaintiffs must marshal evidence in that period or risk losing the claim at summary judgment.
• Costs risk remains real: Prevailing defendants may recover deposition costs even when the deposition is not cited in dispositive briefing, increasing the financial downside of unsuccessful litigation.

Note: The opinion is unpublished and “not designated for publication” under 5th Cir. R. 47.5; its direct precedential force is limited, but it is a clear application of binding published standards.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Summary judgment”: A pretrial ruling where the judge decides there is no genuine dispute of material fact requiring a trial. The nonmoving party must present evidence (not just allegations) showing a real factual dispute.
• “Individual with a disability” (Rehabilitation Act): Having a physical/mental impairment is not enough; the impairment must substantially limit a major life activity (like working, walking, seeing, learning). General statements about a condition, without evidence of substantial limitation, often fail at summary judgment.
• “Similarly situated comparator”: Another employee used for comparison. In the Fifth Circuit, it is not enough that the comparator is outside the protected class; the comparator must be meaningfully comparable—same job/responsibilities, same supervisor/decisionmaker, and similar disciplinary/violation history.
• “Prima facie case”: The minimum set of elements a plaintiff must initially show to create an inference of discrimination/retaliation.
• “Legitimate, non-retaliatory reason” and “pretext”: If the employer provides a lawful reason for its action, the plaintiff must show that reason is not true or is a cover for retaliation.
• “But-for causation” (retaliation): The plaintiff must show the adverse action would not have happened absent the protected activity—not merely that protected activity played some role.
• “Rule 59(e) reconsideration”: A narrow mechanism to correct manifest errors or consider newly discovered evidence; it is not a “second chance” to reargue the case.
• “Taxable costs” under Rule 54(d)(1): Certain litigation expenses (often including deposition transcripts) may be shifted to the losing party. A deposition can be “necessarily obtained for use in the case” even if not ultimately used as an exhibit or quoted in briefing.

V. Conclusion

Thomas v. Steiner is a procedural-and-evidentiary cautionary decision: the Fifth Circuit enforced discovery deadlines, demanded competent summary-judgment proof on each claim element, required an actual pretext response to a legitimate termination rationale, constrained hostile-work-environment claims to the administratively accepted timeframe, and reaffirmed that deposition costs may be taxed even when not cited. For federal-sector EEO litigants, the case highlights that surviving summary judgment typically turns less on the breadth of allegations and more on timely litigation conduct and admissible evidence tied to controlling elements.