MD Shakilur Rahman v. FedEx Corporate Services

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee grants FedEx Corporate Services' motion for summary judgment in MD Shakilur Rahman's Title VII national-origin discrimination action. The court concludes that Rahman failed to establish a prima facie case because he was not qualified for the Customer Service Technology Advisor position and did not identify similarly situated individuals outside his protected class who were treated differently. The court denies Rahman's motion for summary judgment as untimely and meritless, denies his motion to amend as moot, and directs the clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. Rahman failed to establish a prima facie case of national-origin discrimination because he did not show that he was qualified for the position or that similarly situated persons outside his protected class were treated more favorably.
2. Rahman could not establish a prima facie discrimination claim because he was not qualified for the Customer Service Technology Advisor position.
3. Rahman failed to establish a prima facie case because he did not identify evidence that similarly situated persons outside his protected class were treated more favorably.
4. Rahman could not create a genuine dispute at summary judgment by attempting to add a claim concerning the Business Product Analyst II position after omitting that theory from his complaint and disclaiming it in deposition testimony.
5. Rahman's motion for summary judgment was properly denied because it was filed more than a month after the dispositive-motion deadline and, alternatively, failed on the merits for the same reasons that FedEx was entitled to summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rahman established a prima facie case of Title VII national-origin discrimination based on FedEx's failure to interview or hire him for the Customer Service Technology Advisor position.
2. Whether Rahman showed that he was qualified for the Customer Service Technology Advisor position.
3. Whether Rahman showed that similarly situated persons outside his protected class were treated more favorably.
4. Whether Rahman's attempt to raise discrimination concerning the Business Product Analyst II position could create a genuine dispute at summary judgment after he omitted that claim from his pleadings and disclaimed it in sworn testimony.
5. Whether Rahman's motion for summary judgment was timely.

Disposition

other