A federal court has dismissed claims brought by a Texas firefighter-paramedic who alleged he was subjected to age-based harassment, retaliated against after complaining about the harassment, and denied rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Timothy B. Hauptrief sued the City of Converse following his termination in February 2024. Hauptrief was hired by the city as an EMT/paramedic in November 2021 and promoted to firefighter/paramedic in March 2023. He was over 40 when he was hired.

According to Hauptrief, his problems began in December 2022 when Captain Gina Benson stated in his presence that he had only been hired because he was over 40. Hauptrief interpreted the comment to mean he was hired for quota or compliance purposes. He also claimed Captain Benson directed Lieutenant Denver Tedford to “make sure [Hauptrief] didn’t have an easy time.”

Hauptrief alleged that in August 2023, he overheard a two-hour meeting involving Lieutenant Tedford, Step Up Officer Hernan Martinez, and FF James Delahunt during which employees discussed how “they did not want a man that was 43 and overweight riding on the fire engine” and believed he “should receive extra scrutiny for it.”

The following month, FF Delahunt allegedly made additional comments about Hauptrief’s age and fitness, including that he did not “feel safe with the old guy on the truck.” Hauptrief also claimed that from August through October 2023, coworkers mocked him in a group text with comments suggesting he was unfit or “too old” to be involved.

Hauptrief was diagnosed with anxiety, depression and PTSD. He informed Assistant Chief Christensen and Lt. Tedford of his conditions and told Lt. Tedford that he had been prescribed medication for blood pressure and anxiety-related issues.

On January 23, 2024, Hauptrief sent Fire Chief Luis Valdez a letter complaining about age discrimination, threats, intimidation, hazing, bullying and workplace harassment. He alleged that he had been harassed because of his weight, vision, age and PTSD.

Two days later, the city opened a formal investigation. Human Resources Director Kiearha Davidson interviewed Hauptrief and other witnesses. On January 26, Davidson placed Hauptrief on administrative leave for 48 hours because statements he made in his complaint and during his interview raised concerns about his well-being. She also advised him of confidential services available through the city’s Employee Assistance Program.

Hauptrief contacted the EAP on January 30 seeking mental health counseling, with his first counseling session scheduled for February 6.

Meanwhile, the city completed its investigation and concluded that Hauptrief’s allegations were unsubstantiated. According to the investigative report, witnesses disputed Hauptrief’s version of events, and the investigator concluded that he had exaggerated or been untruthful about some of his allegations.

On February 1, 2024, the city terminated Hauptrief.

The termination letter stated that the investigation concluded that “Hauptrief violated the City Policy and Standard Operating Procedures of the Fire Department, which prompted disciplinary action.” Among the policies cited was one providing for discipline when claims of harassment and discrimination are found to be “untruthful, fabricated, or exaggerated or when employees are untruthful during an investigation.”

Hauptrief’s federal claims alleged retaliation and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and interference with his rights under the FMLA.

On the retaliation claim, US Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. “Betsy” Chestney concluded Hauptrief established a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. His complaint about age-related comments constituted protected activity, his termination was an adverse employment action, and the timing was sufficient to establish the required causal connection at that stage. Hauptrief was terminated just eight days after engaging in the protected activity.

However, the city produced evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: Hauptrief’s alleged violations of city and fire department policies uncovered during the investigation. That shifted the burden back to Hauptrief to produce evidence that the city’s stated reason was a pretext for retaliation.

The court concluded he failed to do so, explaining that Hauptrief had produced no competent evidence of pretext beyond the close timing between his complaint and termination.

The court also rejected Hauptrief’s hostile work environment claim. While acknowledging evidence of age-related comments, the court concluded the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish an actionable hostile work environment.

The court explained that Hauptrief identified age-related comments on three occasions between December 2022 and September 2023, along with the group text messages between August and October 2023. None involved physical threats, and Hauptrief testified that he continued to perform his job well.

The court concluded that “the handful of incidents of derisive comments made by peers are neither severe nor pervasive enough to rise to the level of altering a term or condition of employment.”

Hauptrief’s FMLA interference claim was based on his anxiety, depression and PTSD. The court concluded the evidence did not establish that those conditions constituted a serious health condition that entitled him to FMLA leave.

Hauptrief presented no evidence that his conditions caused periods of incapacity or that he required leave from work. To the contrary, he testified that he did not feel he “was ever unable to work as a firefighter” because of his conditions and believed he performed his job well as a firefighter and paramedic.

The court also noted that Hauptrief never requested medical leave because of his conditions. His contact with the EAP shortly before his termination was insufficient to establish continuing treatment, incapacity or a long-term condition within the meaning of the FMLA.

Concluding that Hauptrief could not establish his ADEA retaliation, ADEA hostile work environment, or FMLA interference claims, the court granted the City of Converse summary judgment on all remaining claims.