Isidore v. Westport Linen Services

── Isidore v. Westport Linen Services ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-30745 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30745 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 28, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Gertrand Isidore, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Westport Linen Services, L.L.C.; Bryan Palmer; Unidentified Parties, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:25-CV-410 ______________________________ Before Davis, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * This appeal involves the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard as applied to an employment-discrimination claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 1 _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 1 See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).  Case: 25-30745 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 No. 25-30745 Because we agree with the district court that the complaint does not meet that standard, we AFFIRM its judgment dismissing the action. In February 2025, Plaintiff-Appellant Gertrand Isidore, an African American maintenance worker, sued Defendants-Appellees Westport Linen Services, L.L.C., Bryan Palmer, and unidentified insurers for employment discrimination. 2 His counseled complaint alleges a conspiracy among Defendants to pay Isidore “below-market wages” and “to have him work under unsafe conditions,” including “menial and dangerous work” that other employees were not required to do. It also avers Defendants misrepresented the condition of a washing machine, which malfunctioned and electrocuted Isidore, causing catastrophic injuries. Beyond these allegations, however, the circumstances of Isidore’s employment, injury, and purported wrongful termination are markedly ill-defined. While the complaint asserts a number of claims, just the § 1981 claim is before us. Its elements are identical to those of a Title VII claim3—“(1) an ‘adverse employment action,’ (2) taken against a plaintiff ‘because of [his] protected status’” 4—though a § 1981 claimant must also plead that race was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action. 5 _____________________ 2 Isidore’s complaint also states he is of Haitian descent. Defendants respond that national-origin discrimination is not cognizable under § 1981. But § 1981’s prohibition on race discrimination can encompass ancestry and ethnic characteristics, depending on the facts presented. See Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987). Because we resolve this case on other grounds, we don’t reach the parties’ arguments on this point. 3 See Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., Inc., 26 F.3d 1277, 1284 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994). 4 Cicalese v