Chambers, et al v. Raines Electric LP

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-11392
Summary Calendar
JOE A. CHAMBERS; LAURIE CHAMBERS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
RAINES ELECTRIC LP,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-cv-1231
--------------------
Before KING, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Joe and Laura Chambers appeal the judgment of the district
court dismissing their ERISA claim on the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. We affirm.
I.
The Chambers were employed by defendant Raines Electric LP
for several years. Joe Chambers injured his back several times
during the term of his employment, most recently in May 2002.
Mr. Chambers was scheduled for back surgery on June 14, 2002. On
June 7, 2002, the Chambers were terminated. Although the message

-- 1 of 3 --

2
was delivered by the Chambers’ immediate supervisor, Steven
Beader, the decision to terminate was made by Dan Shine, the
project manager of the site on which Chambers was working, and
Steve Lawhorn, Raines’ human resources, safety manager.
On Raines’ motion for summary judgment, the district court
found that the Chambers did not carry their burden of proving a
prima facie case of ERISA discrimination and granted the motion.
The Chambers appeal.
II.
The Chambers allege that their dismissal was motivated by
their employers’ desire to avoid providing insurance coverage for
Joe Chambers’ surgery. In order to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination under ERISA, a plaintiff must establish “(1)
prohibited (adverse) employer action (2) taken for the purpose of
interfering with the attainment of (3) any right to which the
employee is entitled.” Bodine v. Employers Cas. Co., 352 F.3d
245, 250 (5th Cir. 2003). In order to establish causation in a
retaliation case, the employee must demonstrate that the employer
knew about the employee’s protected activity. Manning v. Chevron
Chem. Co., LLC, 332 F.3d 874, 883 (5th Cir. 2003); Chaney v. New
Orleans Public Facility Mgm’t, 179 F.3d 164, 169 (5th Cir. 1999);
Medina v. Ramsay Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674, 684 (5th Cir. 2001).
The summary judgment evidence in this case is undisputed that
Shine and Lawhorn, the parties who made the decision to
terminate, were unaware of Joe Chambers’ injury and planned

-- 2 of 3 --

3
surgery when they decided to terminate Chambers and his wife.
The temporal proximity of the Chambers’ termination to Mr.
Chambers’ planned surgery cannot overcome the lack of knowledge
on the part of the decision makers that necessarily defeats the
Chambers’ prima facie case. Clark County School District v.
Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 271-74 (2001).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --