Reese v. United Petroleum Transports: Fifth Circuit Reaffirms Gonzalez–Caston Factors for Appointing Counsel in Title VII Cases and Enforces Ragas’s Specific-Evidence Requirement on Appeal

Introduction

In Reese v. United Petroleum Transports, Inc., No. 24-10943 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of appointed counsel under Title VII and its grant of summary judgment against a pro se plaintiff on hostile work environment and retaliation claims. The case arises from workplace complaints made by a commercial fuel truck driver, Lisa Y. Reese, against a coworker, followed by her mental-health leave, an eventual failure to return to work under company policy, and termination.

On appeal, Reese challenged the repeated denials of appointment of counsel and the ultimate summary judgment entered for United Petroleum Transports, Inc. (UPT). The panel held that the district court acted within its discretion in declining to appoint counsel and that summary judgment was appropriate because Reese failed to identify specific record evidence supporting the essential elements of her hostile environment and retaliation claims, as required at the summary judgment stage. The court also declined to entertain a host of new claims raised for the first time on appeal.

Although unpublished and therefore not precedential under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the opinion underscores two practical points with broad significance: (1) the distinct statutory standard for appointing counsel in Title VII cases under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (as opposed to the indigent-litigant standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915), and (2) the obligation of even pro se litigants to identify specific summary-judgment evidence and legal authority on appeal under the Ragas standard and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in full:

Appointment of counsel: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reese’s motions for appointment of counsel under Title VII. The court applied the correct framework—considering the merits, efforts to secure counsel, and ability to pay—and appropriately treated the EEOC’s dismissals as probative of the merits (Gonzalez v. Carlin; Caston v. Sears).
Hostile work environment (sexual harassment): No genuine dispute of material fact was shown. Reese failed to adduce evidence that the coworker’s alleged conduct was based on sex or that it was severe or pervasive; the record reflected that UPT investigated and took steps to minimize contact, defeating employer liability premised on coworker harassment.
Retaliation: Reese failed to establish the causation element of a prima facie case. And even assuming a prima facie showing, she failed to raise a fact issue on pretext in the face of UPT’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination—her failure to return from leave or provide documentation to extend it.
Appellate procedure: Despite some deficiencies, the court declined to dismiss the appeal for Rule 28 noncompliance because Reese’s pro se brief identified issues and authorities. However, the court enforced forfeiture principles, declining to consider new claims raised for the first time on appeal and denying UPT’s motion to strike as moot.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Decision

Appointment of counsel under Title VII:
- Gonzalez v. Carlin, 907 F.2d 573, 579–80 (5th Cir. 1990). The court reiterated that appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) is discretionary and guided by three non-exclusive factors: (1) the merits of the claim, (2) the plaintiff’s efforts to secure counsel, and (3) the plaintiff’s financial ability to retain counsel. No single factor is dispositive. Gonzalez also cautions against importing 28 U.S.C. § 1915 standards when the plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309–10 (5th Cir. 1977). The EEOC’s determination is not dispositive but is highly probative in assessing the merits for appointment-of-counsel purposes. Here, both of Reese’s EEOC charges were dismissed, and the district court properly weighed that in the “total mix.”
- Buesgens v. Snow, 169 F. App’x 869, 870 (5th Cir. 2006) and Paskauskiene v. Alcor Petrolab, L.L.P., 527 F. App’x 329, 333 (5th Cir. 2013). These cases underscore the non-interchangeability of Title VII appointed-counsel analysis and § 1915 indigency-based appointments. Because Reese did not proceed IFP, § 1915 did not govern.
Standards of review and summary judgment:
- Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007) and Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 363 (5th Cir. 2002). Abuse-of-discretion review applies to denials of appointed counsel; a court abuses its discretion if its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
- Miller v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 98 F.4th 211, 215–16 (5th Cir. 2024). Orders granting summary judgment are reviewed de novo, applying the same standards as the district court.
- Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998); Nall v. BNSF Ry. Co., 917 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2019); Brown v. City of Houston, 65 F.4th 774, 777 (5th Cir. 2023). These decisions set forth the movant/non-movant burdens, the need for the non-movant to identify specific evidence and explain how it supports the claim, and the perspective for viewing the evidence on summary judgment. The court applied Ragas to hold that Reese’s generalized assertions were insufficient to create a genuine issue.
Pro se litigants and Rule 28 compliance:
- Collins v. Dallas Leadership Found., 77 F.4th 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2023); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Courts construe pro se filings liberally, a principle the Fifth Circuit invoked to consider Reese’s appeal despite imperfections.
- Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995); McKenzie v. EOG Resources, Inc., 340 F. App’x 985, 986 (5th Cir. 2009); Davison v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 712 F.3d 884, 886 (5th Cir. 2013); Price v. Digital Equipment Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988). These authorities inform the court’s discretion to consider non-conforming briefs and assess prejudice. Here, the panel found no prejudice and deemed UPT’s motion to dismiss unwarranted.
Forfeiture of issues on appeal:
- Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) and Celanese Corp. v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 620 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 2010). Arguments not raised below or inadequately briefed on appeal are forfeited. The court deemed Reese’s new ADA, wrongful termination, and other theories forfeited and denied UPT’s motion to strike as moot.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning proceeds in two tracks: discretionary review of the district court’s refusal to appoint counsel and de novo review of the summary judgment rulings on the hostile work environment and retaliation claims.

1) Appointment of Counsel Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)

The court reaffirmed that district courts must use the Title VII framework articulated in Gonzalez v. Carlin for appointing counsel. Reese did not proceed IFP, so § 1915 was inapplicable. The district court properly weighed the Gonzalez factors, including:

Merits: The EEOC had dismissed Reese’s charges—highly probative of the merits (Caston). The district court also had a record indicating the employer’s investigations did not substantiate her allegations.
Efforts to obtain counsel: The court found insufficient grounds to appoint counsel given the overall record.
Financial ability: Reese was not proceeding IFP; she paid filing fees below. The court could reasonably conclude she had not shown inability to retain counsel.

On appeal, Reese’s assertions of “procedural inequities” and “unfair hearing” were conclusory and not tied to legal error or clearly erroneous factfinding. The Fifth Circuit therefore found no abuse of discretion.

2) Summary Judgment on Hostile Work Environment (Sexual Harassment)

A Title VII hostile work environment claim requires proof that the plaintiff suffered unwelcome harassment, based on sex, that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a term or condition of employment, and that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action (in coworker-harassment cases).

Reese’s evidence fell short in two critical respects:

Based on sex: The record did not support that the alleged stalking, staring, or a single incident involving lights at a loading rack were motivated by sex or sexual animus. Reese referenced “verbal harassment” and “inappropriate sexual remarks,” but she did not identify specific record evidence to substantiate those assertions.
Employer response: UPT repeatedly investigated, could not corroborate her allegations, and nonetheless modified schedules to minimize contact. This prompt remedial action weighs against employer liability for coworker harassment.

Applying Ragas, the panel emphasized that a non-movant opposing summary judgment cannot rely on general allegations or characterizations; they must pinpoint record evidence and explain its materiality. Reese did not do so, and the claim could not survive.

3) Summary Judgment on Retaliation

For retaliation, a plaintiff must generally establish a prima facie case showing protected activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal link between them. Where only circumstantial evidence exists, courts apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework; the employer then offers a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, and the plaintiff must show pretext. The Fifth Circuit also requires but-for causation for Title VII retaliation claims.

The panel concluded Reese failed at the causation element and, even assuming a prima facie showing, failed at pretext:

Causation: Reese’s generalized references to temporal proximity and assignment changes were not backed by specific, admissible evidence. The record timeline and intervening events—particularly her leave and failure to respond to return-to-work communications—undercut a causal inference.
Legitimate reason and pretext: UPT terminated Reese under a neutral company policy after she failed to return to work or provide documentation to extend her leave. Reese did not produce specific evidence showing this rationale was false or a pretext for retaliation.
No direct-evidence requirement misapplied: To the extent Reese suggested the district court required direct evidence, the panel clarified that McDonnell Douglas applies when only circumstantial evidence is available and that the district court did not misapply the evidentiary standard.

4) Appellate Process and Preservation

The court rejected UPT’s request to dismiss the appeal for Rule 28 noncompliance, citing its practice of liberally construing pro se briefs where the opposing party is not prejudiced. However, the panel insisted on issue preservation and adequate briefing: arguments raised for the first time on appeal were forfeited (Rollins; Celanese). In light of forfeiture, UPT’s motion to strike was denied as moot.

Impact

Though unpublished, the opinion has several practical implications:

Appointing counsel in Title VII cases: District courts in the Fifth Circuit are reminded to apply the Title VII-specific Gonzalez–Caston framework and to avoid importing § 1915 standards when a plaintiff is not IFP. Plaintiffs seeking appointed counsel should anticipate that EEOC dismissals will weigh against them unless they can demonstrate robust merits or other compelling factors.
Pro se litigation at summary judgment: Ragas remains a potent filter. Even pro se appellants must marshal specific record citations and clearly articulate why the evidence creates a jury question. Generalized claims of “overlooked” evidence or “credibility issues” will not suffice.
Employer investigations and remedial measures: Employers who promptly investigate complaints, document their efforts, and implement reasonable measures (e.g., schedule adjustments) are well-positioned to defeat coworker-harassment claims on summary judgment.
Leave and return-to-work policy enforcement: Adhering to neutral, consistently enforced leave policies—and documenting communications (here, via a phone application)—provides a strong, legitimate, non-retaliatory rationale that is difficult to rebut as pretext absent compelling contrary evidence.
Appellate preservation: New theories raised on appeal will be forfeited. Parties must develop their record and legal theories in the district court and adequately brief them on appeal to avoid forfeiture.

In sum, the opinion reinforces well-settled principles rather than setting new doctrine, but its synthesis of appointment-of-counsel and summary-judgment standards offers practical guidance for district courts and practitioners.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Title VII vs. § 1981: Title VII prohibits employment discrimination and retaliation based on protected characteristics (e.g., sex, race). Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination in contracting, including employment. The appeal focused on Title VII retaliation and a hostile work environment premised on sexual harassment.
Appointment of counsel under § 2000e-5(f)(1): In Title VII cases, courts may appoint counsel after considering the merits, the plaintiff’s efforts to secure counsel, and ability to pay. This differs from § 1915, which addresses counsel for indigent litigants proceeding IFP.
Hostile work environment (sexual harassment) elements: The harassment must be unwelcome, based on sex, and severe or pervasive enough to change workplace conditions. Employers are liable for coworker harassment only if they knew or should have known and failed to act promptly.
Retaliation and causation: The plaintiff must show a causal link between protected activity (e.g., complaining to HR) and a materially adverse action (e.g., termination). In the Fifth Circuit, but-for causation is required for Title VII retaliation; a neutral policy violation can be a legitimate reason that defeats causation and pretext absent contrary evidence.
McDonnell Douglas framework: A burden-shifting approach used when only circumstantial evidence exists. After the plaintiff makes a prima facie case, the employer must state a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason; the burden returns to the plaintiff to show pretext.
Summary judgment evidence: To survive, a non-movant must identify specific evidence and explain how it creates a genuine dispute of material fact. Assertions without record citations are insufficient.
Forfeiture on appeal: Arguments not raised in the district court or not adequately briefed on appeal are forfeited and will not be considered by the appellate court.
Unpublished opinion (5th Cir. R. 47.5): Not designated for publication; generally not binding precedent, though it may be cited for persuasive value and has binding effect under limited doctrines (e.g., law of the case).

Conclusion

Reese v. United Petroleum Transports is a careful application of established Fifth Circuit law. On appointed counsel, the court reaffirms the Gonzalez–Caston framework governing Title VII litigants who are not proceeding IFP and recognizes the probative value of EEOC dismissals when assessing the merits. On the merits, the decision underscores that even pro se plaintiffs must satisfy the Ragas requirement to identify specific record evidence creating triable issues.

The panel’s de novo review confirms that uncorroborated harassment allegations, especially where the employer investigates and adopts remedial measures, cannot sustain a hostile environment claim, and that neutral enforcement of leave-and-return policies constitutes a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination absent specific evidence of pretext. Procedurally, the court is lenient in reading pro se filings but firm on preservation: new claims raised for the first time on appeal are forfeited.

Key takeaways:

Title VII appointed-counsel decisions hinge on merits, efforts to obtain counsel, and ability to pay; § 1915 standards are inapplicable to non-IFP plaintiffs.
Pro se status does not relax the requirement to cite specific, admissible evidence at summary judgment or to comply with Rule 28 on appeal.
Prompt, documented employer responses to complaints and consistent enforcement of neutral policies are strong defenses to harassment and retaliation claims.
Unpreserved or inadequately briefed issues will not be considered on appeal.

While non-precedential, Reese offers clear, practical guidance that will influence how district courts in the Fifth Circuit handle requests for appointed counsel in Title VII cases and how they evaluate pro se plaintiffs’ opposition to summary judgment in harassment and retaliation suits.