United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED January 10, 2022 No. 20-40284 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Yves Wantou,

Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

versus

Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C.,

Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, USDC No. 5:17-cv-00018

Before Stewart, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge: Both parties appeal certain rulings by the district court relative to the claims asserted by Plaintiff–Appellant/Cross-Appellee Yves Wantou against Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and Texas law. We AFFIRM. Case: 20-40284 Document: 00516160815 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2022

No. 20-40284

I. Wantou, a pharmacist and black man from Cameroon, West Africa, filed suit against his former employer, Wal-Mart, contending that Wal-Mart intentionally subjected and/or allowed him to be subjected to discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, illegal harassment, and a hostile work environment. Wantou additionally claims that Wal-Mart retaliated against him for complaining about discrimination and asserting his rights. Specifically, Wantou’s suit challenges his termination from employment, three written “coachings” (formal workplace disciplinary actions) that he received while employed by Wal-Mart, a threat of demotion, and Wal-Mart’s alleged failure to pay him for approximately 24 hours of work. Based on these assertions, Wantou has requested relief in the form of back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and restitution under quantum meruit for unpaid work. In the district court, all of Wantou’s claims were dismissed by summary judgment except for his Title VII retaliation claims and his quantum meruit claim. The remaining claims were presented to a jury in October 2019. The jury rejected all but one claim—regarding the third coaching—for which it awarded $75,000 in punitive damages. The jury also provided an advisory verdict recommending an award of $32,240 in back pay and $0 in front pay. Post-trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Wantou as to the third coaching, awarding $75,000 in punitive damages but only $5,177.50 as back pay. Attorney’s fees also were awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) to Wantou as a prevailing party. On appeal, Wantou challenges the jury’s rejection of his Title VII retaliation claims regarding his termination and first and second coachings, and the jury’s failure to award compensatory damages or restitution for unpaid work and other benefits. Wantou also contests the district court’s

2 Case: 20-40284 Document: 00516160815 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/10/2022

No. 20-40284

front and back pay awards, the summary judgment dismissal of his discrimination and hostile work environment claims, and a number of the district court’s rulings rega