NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0018n.06
No. 18-1127
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED ARMANDO NIEVES, ) Jan 14, 2019 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ENVOY AIR, INC., ) MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellee. )
BEFORE: SILER and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; OLIVER, District Judge.*
OLIVER, District Judge. Armando Nieves (“Nieves”) sued Envoy Air Incorporated
(“Envoy”) for wrongful termination. Nieves claims that Envoy violated: (1) the Family and
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) by terminating him in retaliation for using medical leave; (2) the
Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act by terminating him because of his disability;
and (3) the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act by terminating him based on his race and
ethnicity. The district court granted Envoy’s motion for summary judgment on all counts. We
AFFIRM.
I.
Nieves, a Hispanic-American, worked as a gate agent for Envoy Air for 19 years. Envoy,
formerly known as American Eagle, is an affiliate of American Airlines (“American”). In 2008,
Nieves and his wife, Sahara Vargas (“Vargas”) (also an Envoy employee), were transferred by the
* The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
airline to Grand Rapids, Michigan to work at the Gerald R. Ford Airport (“GRR”). Nieves’s
responsibilities included working at the ticketing counter, customer service desk, loading luggage,
and directing planes on the jet way.
In September 2014, Envoy transferred a new General Manager, Mitch Felkey (“Felkey”),
to GRR. Shortly after Felkey joined, a few conflicts arose between Nieves and Felkey. For
example, on one occasion, company training files went missing and Felkey blamed Nieves. When
Felkey became aware that the files were missing through no fault of Nieves, he did not offer Nieves
an apology. On another occasion, when Nieves was absent from his assigned duty station, Felkey
threatened Nieves with termination unless he procured statements from coworkers that could
corroborate his explanation that he was absent because he was assisting a customer.
A. American initiates a travel audit.
In the Spring of 2015, American commenced a travel audit of its employees and the
employees of its affiliated airlines. The purpose for the audit was to look for travel privilege abuse
by employees. According to American’s policy, if an employee permits an ineligible individual to
use travel benefits, that employee is subject to termination. The policy was disseminated to all of
Envoy’s employees. Although American was involved in the travel audit process and was initially
a named Defendant, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of American from the case because
American did not directly employ Nieves.
American’s Employee Travel Privilege Department (“TPD”) is responsible for managing
all employee travel privilege programs, including audits of employees’ use of such privileges. The
TPD administers two types of audits—specific and random. A specific audit singles out individual
employees, usually at the request of the employee’s supervisor. A random audit occurs two to four
2 No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
times per year, includes a group of employees, and is initiated by the TPD or American’s corporate
security. The department sends notice letters to the audited employees and coordinates the
investigation with a human resources representative employed by American and its affiliated
airlines.
In April 2015, the TPD conducted a random audit. In conjunction with this audit, Envoy
claims that it mailed Nieves a letter informing him that he was selected for the audit; however,
Nieves claims he never received such a letter. Nonetheless, Nieves received a second notification
letter dated June 12, 2015. The letter informed Nieves that, as part of the random audit, he had
until June 23, 2015, to send proof of eligibility for the travelers he had listed on his travel privileges
log. The letter also included a list of acceptable forms of documentation that he could submit to
prove the eligibility of the individuals he had listed. Nieves responded by faxing documentation
related only to the family members that were active travelers at that time—his stepdaughter and
his wife, Vargas. However, throughout Nieves’s employment with Envoy, he listed several
individuals on his travel log. Envoy maintains that Nieves was to submit documentation for each
individual listed on his travel log during his tenure at the airline.
Nieves and Vargas have seven children—all of whom were listed on Nieves’s travel log.
Some of his children were listed multiple times because their status changed from “child” to
“student.” At some point, Nieves also listed two other individuals as students or children. The first,
Arnaldo Melo (“Melo”), was the son of a close friend of Vargas’s. Melo’s mother, who was living
in the Dominican Republic at the time, wrote Vargas explaining that she could no longer take care
of Melo. Nieves and Vargas agreed to move Melo to the United States and take him into their
home. The second was Vargas’s half-brother, Denys Martinez (“Martinez”). Martinez was staying
with Nieves’s family while he attended college.
-3- No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
Further, Nieves listed his mother’s long-time companion, Daniel Cesar (“Cesar”), and
classified him as his “Father/Step Father.” Although Cesar and Nieves’s mother had a long-term
relationship, they were not married and did not have a recognized common-law marriage.1 In all,
Nieves’s travel log, over time, contained a total of 24 names—Nieves, Vargas, their seven children
(including duplicate entries), Vargas’s mother, Melo, Martinez, Nieves’s mother, and his mother’s
boyfriend. Except for Martinez, each of Nieves’s listed members used travel benefits at least once
while he was employed at Envoy.
After Nieves faxed the documents showing eligibility for his wife and stepdaughter, he did
not hear from the TPD for a significant period of time. However, an email exchange initiated on
September 15, 2015, between American’s Director of Human Resources, Mike Whittle
(“Whittle”), and Envoy’s Senior Human Resources/Employee Relations Specialist, Nina Ingalls
(“Ingalls”), indicates that the audit had not come to a close. Rather, Nieves’s audit was added to a
stack of audits that required further investigation.
It was not until September 25, 2015, and after Whittle sent out emails requesting updates
on 15 of Envoy’s outstanding audits, did Nieves’s travel audit get elevated as a priority. Still, the
auditing process moved at a slow pace. On January 21, 2016, Ingalls received another email from
her superior asking for an update on the outstanding 2015 audits, including Nieves’s, and requested
that they be closed as soon as possible.
B. The audit investigation is delayed.
On January 26, 2016, Ingalls emailed Felkey to coordinate her interview with Nieves. She
indicated that she noticed that Nieves had been out sick since January 4, 2016, and asked Felkey
1 Nieves claims that, during the course of this litigation, a previous supervisor gave him approval to add Cesar to his travel benefits list. However, nothing in the record indicates that he raised this argument during the audit investigation.
-4- No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
whether he thought Nieves had been abusing his sick leave or had “some type of serious medical
problem going on?” (R.44-6, PageID.204.) Ingalls was unaware at the time that Nieves had been
hospitalized the first week of January for stage three kidney failure. Felkey informed Ingalls that
Nieves was in the hospital and that his condition was serious. Ingalls instructed Felkey on how to
get Nieves on sick leave under the FMLA. However, Nieves’s FMLA paperwork had already been
completed on January 12, 2016, while he was in the hospital.
C. Audit investigation resumes.
After several weeks of recovery, Nieves returned to work on February 19, 2016, clearing
the way for Ingalls to complete her investigation. On March 9, 2016, Ingalls conducted a telephone
interview with Nieves and Felkey present. Nieves was not informed ahead of time of the interview,
nonetheless he proceeded to answer Ingalls’s questions regarding his travel privileges log.
Ingalls declared that she questioned Nieves about each of the entries on his travel log during
the interview, including his mother’s boyfriend, Cesar. Nieves claims that Ingalls never asked him
about Cesar. However, Ingalls’s interview notes, which became a part of her investigation
memorandum that she submitted to American’s human resources department, corroborate her
account. They indicate that Nieves disclosed to her that Cesar and his mother had been together
for over twenty years but had never legally married. After the interview, Nieves was instructed
that he had until March 18, 2016—nine days—to provide documentation for each of the
individuals listed on his travel log.
The following week, Nieves provided letters from the mothers of Martinez and Melo
indicating that Nieves’s family had taken care of their children in the past. Envoy maintains that
the letters did not show that he had court-approved guardianship over the children. Further, Felkey
-5- No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
informed Nieves that the letters were not the kind of documentation that would prove he had legal
guardianship; however, he forwarded the letters to Ingalls anyway.
After receiving the letters, Ingalls prepared a summary of her investigation and sent it to
Barbara Starcer (“Starcer”), Envoy’s Senior Human Resource Specialist, and Mariluz Duque
(“Duque”) (Starcer’s supervisor). Ingalls informed them that Nieves had not provided proper
documentation for Martinez and Melo, and no documentation for Carlos Martinez (Nieves’s step-
son), Daniel Cesar, and Felipa Trejo (Nieves’s mother-in-law). In her correspondence, she noted
that several individuals did not meet the criteria to be eligible travelers and inquired whether she
“should even bother to ask for the proof of parent-in-law relationship” or “just move on in
convincing the [general manager] that this is a violation of policy?” (R. 44-9.) Duque responded
that when ineligible travelers use an employee’s travel privilege, “termination is the outcome time
and time again.” (Id.) Starcer responded that she agreed and was on board with terminating Nieves.
According to Envoy, this was consistent with a document maintained by American, the Employee
Travel Incidents Matrix (“Matrix”), which outlines the recommended penalty for various offense
committed by airline employees. (R. 45-20.) The recommended penalty for ineligible travelers,
according to the Matrix, is termination. Therefore, Ingalls was instructed to tell Felkey that Nieves
needed to be let go.
D. Termination of Nieves.
After conferring with her fellow human resources personnel, Ingalls forwarded a packet to
Felkey that contained a summary memo, her interview notes, the documentation that Nieves
provided, and Nieves’s travel privilege log and usage history. Nothing in the summary contained
information regarding Nieves’s medical leave. She then instructed Felkey to begin the “off-
-6- No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
boarding” process for Nieves. In addition, on March 24, 2016, Ingalls sent an email to American’s
Travel Coordinator, Eileen Rudnick, requesting that she freeze Nieves’s travel privileges.
According to Nieves, it was around this stage of the investigation that his wife, Vargas,
told Felkey, without offering any names, that other employees were abusing travel privileges by
selling “buddy passes” for profit. However, Felkey and Ingalls maintain that they did not see how
this allegation would have helped Nieves, considering the review process was out of Felkey’s
hands at that time and the information did not exculpate Nieves.
The decision to terminate was reviewed by a three-person committee: Envoy’s vice
presidents of human resources, finance, and legal departments. The committee approved the
decision to terminate Nieves. Ingalls drafted a termination letter that stated the following reasons
for Nieves’s termination: misrepresentation of facts, misrepresentation in obtaining employee
benefits or privileges, and abuse of travel privileges. The letter explained that Nieves had violated
Envoy Rules and Regulations #16, 34, and 37, which state:
Rule #16: Misrepresentation of facts or falsification of records is prohibited. Rule #34: Dishonesty of any kind in relation to the Company, such as . . . misrepresentation in obtaining employee benefits or privileges will be grounds for dismissal . . . . Rule #37: Abuse of travel privileges will be grounds for dismissal.
She sent the letter to Felkey on March 30, 2016. Felkey approved, signed, and delivered the letter
to Nieves. (R. 44-13.)
Nieves appealed the termination to Felkey’s supervisor, Greg Ricketts, who worked out
of Envoy’s Headquarters in Texas. In his appeal, Nieves admitted that he “made a mistake when
listing [Daniel Cesar]” as his father, and that he was not given enough time to prove his case in
regard to Melo and Martinez since the documents needed were only obtainable in the Dominican
-7- No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
Republic. (R. 44-7, PageID.432.) Relying on Nieves’s admission about Cesar’s ineligibility,
Ricketts upheld the committee’s termination decision.
Nieves sued Envoy for wrongful termination on the three counts listed supra. The district
court granted Envoy’s motion for summary judgment on all three claims. Nieves now appeals.
II.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Roell v. Hamilton Cty.,
Ohio/Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Cty. Commissioners, 870 F.3d 471, 479 (6th Cir. 2017), reh’g denied
(Sept. 21, 2017). Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, “show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274, 281 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, Envoy
bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Id. If
Envoy meets its burden, then Nieves must present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable
jury could find for him. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).
Further, “[t]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not
defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that
there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Seeger, 681 F.3d at 281 (citation omitted) (emphasis
in original). In making this determination, the court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
III.
A. Nieves’s FMLA leave claim.
The FMLA entitles employees to twelve weeks of leave, annually, for “serious health
condition[s] that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of [his] position.” Arban v.
-8- No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 400 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D)).
Employees may recover for violations of FMLA under two distinct theories: “(1) the entitlement
or interference theory arising from 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1); and (2) the retaliation or discrimination
theory arising from 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2).” Hoge v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 384 F.3d 238, 244
(6th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original). Nieves brings his claim under the retaliation theory.
In order to state a prima facie case under the FMLA based on a theory of retaliation, a
plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) they are engaging in an activity protected by the FMLA; (2) the
employer knew that they were exercising their rights under the FMLA; (3) after learning of the
employee’s exercise of FMLA rights, the employer took an employment action adverse to them;
and (4) a casual connection exists between the protected FMLA activity and the adverse
employment action. Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tenn., Inc., 454 F.3d 549, 556 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing
Arban, 345 F.3d at 404). Under this theory, “[w]hat makes the employment decision unlawful . . .
is the motive of the employer—namely, that the action was taken because the employee exercised,
or complained about the denial of, FMLA-protected rights.” Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d
501, 512 (6th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original).
When a plaintiff relies on indirect evidence to prove causation, such as proximity in time
between the FMLA leave and the adverse employment action, the court must employ the three-
step process explained in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), to analyze
the FMLA claim. Skrjanc v. Great Lake Power Serv. Co., 272 F.3d 309, 315 (6th Cir. 2001). First,
the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation. Id. Next, the burden shifts to the
employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
Id. Finally, if the employer can offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse
-9- No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
employment action, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence that the alleged
nondiscriminatory rationale was in reality a pretext. Skrjanc, 272 F.3d at 315.
The first three prongs of Nieves’s prima facie case are not in dispute. For this claim, Envoy
argues that Nieves failed to establish a causal connection between his FMLA leave and his
termination—the fourth element of his prima facie case. Nieves points to evidence in the record
which he maintains raise genuine issues of disputed fact regarding whether his taking FMLA leave
was causally connected to his termination.
First, Nieves argues that Ingalls’s claim that he took “frequent FMLA leave” is probative
of causation. A review of the record shows that Ingalls merely made a note to herself that Nieves
had “frequent FMLs,” as she was trying to schedule him from an interview to finish his audit
investigation. In her deposition she states: “if I would have looked in his time and attendance and
saw a lot of FMLs or [shift swaps], then I would have noted this because we are still trying to make
sure when he would be available.” (R.46-9, PageID.832.) In this context, Ingalls’s private note to
herself that Nieves was unavailable due to FMLA leave does not show that his FMLA leave was
causally connected to his subsequent termination.
Next, Nieves asserts that the district court failed to construe the evidence in a light most
favorable to him when it dismissed a comment Felkey made to Nieves’s wife that Nieves was ill
and should retire. However, examining the comment in the full context of the conversation
between Felkey and Vargas, it is clear that Felkey was simply responding to Vargas’s overview of
Nieves’s health condition. In her deposition, Vargas recalls the conversation as follows:
[Question]: Okay. So tell me what you mean by that. [Vargas]: Well, when he came from the hospital, returned to work, Mitch pulled him [sic] aside and says [sic] – and asked me, “How is the old man doing?” And I said, “He’s not doing too good.”
- 10 - No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
His kidney doctor told him, told us that he -- his kidney was only functioning at 25 percent, and his heart doctor say [sic] he need to have a job where he don’t [sic] have that much stress and that he should not be -- require less lifting, repetitive lifting, that’s how he said it. And then – and Mitch says, “Well, since, since he’s that ill, he needs to retire.” And I said, “He can’t, because we have a lot of bills to pay,” and that was the end of the conversation.
(R. 45-6, PageID.579.)
The district court was correct in concluding that the comment was too ambiguous to support
Nieves’s claim that the decision to discharge him was related to his FMLA leave.
Nieves also argues that his travel log was given heightened scrutiny and that this raises an
inference of a causal connection. However, nothing in the record supports that he was subject to
increased scrutiny beyond the ordinary inquiry that follows a travel audit within the company.
Envoy maintains that Nieves was flagged for an audit due to the number of entries on his travel
log. According to American and its Matrix, an employee’s abuse of travel privileges is a terminable
offense, regardless of whether the ineligible individual is currently listed or was in the past.
Finally, Nieves claims that he experienced negative treatment by Felkey in retaliation for
using FMLA leave when Felkey commented, “if you cannot perform the duty, then we don’t need
you here.” (R. 44-13, PageID.336.) However, Nieves testified in his deposition that Felkey made
this general comment to a group of employees shortly after Felkey was transferred to GRR, and
approximately one year before Nieves took FMLA leave.
Nieves has failed to establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation because he has not
shown that his exercising of FMLA leave was causally connected to his termination. Therefore,
the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Envoy on this claim.
- 11 - No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
B. Nieves’s disabilities claim.
Next, Nieves argues that Envoy violated the Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil
Rights Act.2 Michigan courts analyze these types of claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-
shifting framework. See Bachman v. Swan Harbour Ass’n, 653 N.W.2d 415, 437 n.26 (Mich. Ct.
App. 2002). In order to make a prima facie showing under the Act, Nieves must establish that:
(1) he is disabled as defined by the statute; (2) the disability is unrelated to his ability to perform
the duties of a particular job; and (3) he was discharged because of his disability. Chiles v. Mach.
Shop, Inc., 606 N.W.2d 398, 405 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
Although the parties dispute whether Nieves’s kidney impairment falls within the statute’s
definition of disabled, this court does not need to determine this issue. Even if we assume that
Nieves is disabled as defined by the statute, as the district judge did, and that his disability is
unrelated to his ability to perform his job, he has not shown that his disability played a role in
Envoy’s decision to terminate him.
Nieves offers the same evidence he proffered in support of his FMLA leave claim to
support his disability claim—Vargas’s testimony that Felkey pulled her aside to inquire about
Nieves’s health and Felkey’s comment that, “if you cannot perform the duty, then we don’t need
you here.” As discussed above, when the conversation between Felkey and Vargas is viewed in its
full scope, the comments about Nieves’s health condition are too ambiguous to support a claim of
disability discrimination. And again, Felkey’s statement about employees unable to perform their
duties was not made in a context suggesting that it was aimed at disabled people, or Nieves in
particular, and was made well before Nieves’s alleged disability developed. Accordingly, because
Nieves has not established a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Michigan’s
2 M. C. L. A. § 37.1101
- 12 - No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of Envoy on this claim.
C. Nieves’s race discrimination claim.
Finally, Nieves alleges race discrimination under Michigan’s Elliot-Larson Civil Rights
Act. M.C.L. § 37.2101, et seq. Again, Michigan courts evaluate these claims under the McDonnell
Douglas burden-shifting framework. See Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan,
666 N.W.2d 186, 193 (Mich. 2003). To prevail on race discrimination, a plaintiff must first
establish a prima facie case by showing: (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he suffered
an adverse employment action, (3) he was qualified for his position, and (4) the adverse action
occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Id. at 192.
1. Nieves’s prima facie case.
The district court concluded that Felkey’s alleged mocking of Nieves’s accent, ignoring
claims that other employees were abusing their travel privileges, and requiring Nieves to perform
less desirable work than his Caucasian coworkers show that Nieves may have suffered from
disparate treatment. Nieves v. Envoy Air Inc., 300 F. Supp. 3d 960, 975 (W.D. Mich. 2018).
Because the district court also specifically found that there was “a genuine issue of fact as to
[Felkey’s] influence” over the decision to terminate Nieves, it concluded that Nieves established
a prima facie case for race discrimination. Id. On appeal, Envoy does not challenge this
determination. (Appellee Br. 36, n. 7.) Therefore, the only issue here is whether Nieves has set
forth evidence showing that Envoy’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him was
pretextual.
- 13 - No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
2. Pretext.
Envoy has advanced legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Nieves.
Consequently, Nieves must demonstrate that Envoy’s reasons for firing him were pretextual by
showing that the reasons (1) have no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the action; or
(3) were insufficient to warrant the adverse action. Dews v. A.B. Dick Co., 231 F.3d 1016, 1021
(6th Cir. 2000). Nieves must also produce sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably
reject Envoy’s explanation and infer that it intentionally discriminated against him. Clark v.
Walgreen Co., 424 F. App’x. 467, 474 (6th Cir. 2011).
All of Nieves’s claims of pretext are insufficient when viewed in the light most favorable
to him. First, Envoy’s investigation revealed that Nieves improperly included his mother’s
boyfriend, Cesar, on his travel log and did not provide the necessary documentation to prove
Martinez’s and Melo’s eligibility; all grounds for termination according to the airline’s discipline
policy. Second, contrary to Nieves’s contention, Envoy presented document evidence indicating
that other employees flagged for the same audit were terminated. Third, nothing in the record
suggests that the delay in the investigation was designed to advance some ulterior motive.
Although the audit investigation was slow, nothing in the record indicates that it was closed after
Nieves provided his first set of documents in the summer of 2015. Rather, Nieves was one of
several Envoy employees whose audit files required further investigation, and were not made a
priority until Ingalls’s supervisor put pressure on her to wrap up the audits.
Fourth, Nieves’s claim that Envoy’s revocation of his travel privileges prevented him from
obtaining proof that he was the legal guardian to Martinez and Melo is not evidence of pretext
under the circumstances herein. Nothing suggests that Ingalls deviated from company policy by
restricting Nieves’s travel privileges while he was under investigation. The fact that he was unable
- 14 - No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
use his travel privileges does not demonstrate that he could not obtain the documents some other
way, including having Vargas, who had her own travel privileges, obtain the documents. In any
event, this issue is of no consequence, in light of the fact that Cesar remained an ineligible traveler
on Nieves’s log.
Fifth, Nieves’s claim that Felkey disregarded Vargas’s complaint that other employees
abused their travel privileges does not show pretext. No evidence suggests that Vargas’s disclosure
about other employees was provided in a timeframe or context that would have halted or
discontinued Envoy’s investigation into Nieves. Nor did the disclosure exculpate him. By the time
Vargas made her complaint, the investigation of Nieves was almost complete. Ingalls testified that
there was nothing Felkey could have done to alter the outcome if he tried.
Finally, Nieves’s allegation that the travel audit was a pretextual ruse to cover for Envoy
and Felkey’s desire to treat Nieves, a Hispanic man, differently than other employees is not
supported by any evidence. The audit was random and initiated by employees at American, not
Envoy. Nieves was flagged because he had a significant number of individuals listed on his travel
log. At each stage of the investigation, Envoy believed that Nieves violated its travel privileges
policy by listing ineligible individuals. Further, Nieves admitted that he improperly included Cesar
on his travel log when he appealed his termination decision to Ricketts—an admission that led
Ricketts to uphold the termination decision. Accordingly, because Nieves has not shown that
Envoy’s decision to terminate him was pretextual, the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of Envoy.
IV.
Because Nieves has failed to establish a prima facie case for his FMLA and disabilities
claims, we find that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Envoy on these
- 15 - No. 18-1127, Armando Nieves v. Envoy Air, Inc.
claims. Further, because Nieves has not shown that Envoy’s proffered legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating him were pretextual, we find that the district court did
not err in granting summary judgment to Envoy on his race discrimination claim.
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
- 16 -