Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05112/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Delta Airlines Global Services, LLC
Appellee
Maahnchooh Ghogomu
Appellant
John Watts
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

MAAHNCHOOH GHOGOMU, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DELTA AIRLINES GLOBAL 

SERVICES, LLC, as a subsidiary of 

Delta Airlines Inc., and JOHN 

WATTS, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 15-5112 

(D.C. Nos. 4:14-CV-00048-JED-TLW 

&4:14-CV-00049-JED-PJC) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

At the Tulsa International Airport, every Delta flight is supposed to 

have a “final walk around” before the airplane moves from the gate. Prior 

to pushing the airplane from the gate, an employee of Delta Airlines 

 

*

 The Court has determined that oral argument would not materially 

aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. 

R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs. 

 This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But our order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

June 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 1 
2 

Global Services, LLC walks around the airplane to check on certain things, 

such as making sure the fuel-panel door is secure. 

There was no final walk around for Delta Flight 5188, and the fuelpanel door was left open, resulting in damage to the airplane when it 

arrived at the Detroit airport. Delta Global investigated to identify the 

employee who was supposed to conduct the final walk around. This 

investigation led Delta Global to point the finger at Mr. Maahnchooh 

Ghogomu, who had already been warned that another infraction could 

result in termination. Delta Global fired Mr. Ghogomu for failing to 

conduct the final walk around. 

Mr. Ghogomu viewed the firing as discriminatory because he was 

black and Cameroon. He brought suit under Title VII and invoked state-law 

theories of unjust termination, defamation, and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment for Delta 

Global and denied Mr. Ghogomu’s summary judgment motion. Mr. 

Ghogomu, appearing pro se, appeals based on eight arguments: 

1. The district court relied on tampered deposition excerpts of 

himself and a Delta Global employee. 

 

2. The Federal Aviation Administration ultimately blamed 

someone else for the incident. 

3. Delta Global lied about part of its investigation. 

4. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sided with 

Mr. Ghogomu. 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 2 
3 

5. Delta Global failed to produce documentary evidence. 

6. Delta Global changed its version of events. 

7. The district court deliberately misconstrued facts and claims. 

8. The district court waited too long to issue a scheduling order. 

We afford Mr. Ghohomu’s pro se filings a liberal construction. See Yang v. 

Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). But we reject each of 

his arguments. 

1. The district court acted within its discretion in rejecting Mr. 

Ghogomu’s allegation of inaccuracies and omissions in the 

deposition excerpts. 

 Mr. Ghogomu contends that the deposition transcripts for himself and 

a Delta Global employee (John Watts) are inaccurate and incomplete. 

According to Mr. Ghogomu, his actual deposition testimony was not 

accurately transcribed by the court reporter and five pages were omitted in 

his copy of Mr. Watts’s deposition transcript. Mr. Ghogomu raised these 

issues in district court, requesting an order to strike the two deposition 

transcripts. The court declined to strike the deposition transcripts. That 

ruling fell within the district court’s discretion. See Sports Racing Servs., 

Inc. v. Sports Car Club of Am., Inc., 131 F.3d 874, 894 (10th Cir. 1997) 

(“Like other evidentiary rulings, we review a district court’s decision to 

exclude evidence at the summary judgment stage for abuse of discretion.”). 

 Because Mr. Ghogomu said he was missing five pages from Mr. 

Watts’s deposition transcript, the defendants provided these pages to the 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 3 
4 

district court before it ruled on summary judgment. In addition, the district 

court concluded that the alleged errors were immaterial and that Mr. 

Ghogomu had bypassed an opportunity to make changes on the errata page. 

This reasoning makes sense, and the district court acted within its 

discretion in declining to strike the deposition transcripts. 

2. The Federal Aviation Administration’s report does not affect the 

outcome. 

 The Federal Aviation Administration investigated and issued a report 

after Mr. Ghogomu had been fired. The report stated that the fueler had 

been counseled to secure the fuel cap and door. Mr. Ghogomu views this 

report as proof that he was not at fault. 

 The district court correctly concluded that the report does not affect 

the summary-judgment rulings. The report did not come into existence 

until Mr. Ghogomu had already been fired. Thus, Delta Global could not 

have consulted the report when deciding whether to fire Mr. Ghogomu. 

 The eventual FAA report did nothing to exonerate Mr. Ghogomu. The 

final walk around is designed to catch things like the fueler’s failure to 

secure the fuel cap and door. Thus, a mistake by the fueler would not 

excuse a failure of Mr. Ghogomu to make the final walk around. 

 The district court was right: The eventual FAA report did not affect 

the summary-judgment rulings. 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 4 
5 

3. Mr. Ghogomu lacks any evidence that Delta Global lied about its 

investigation. 

 In investigating the incident, Delta Global tried to find out who was 

supposed to do the final walk around for Flight 5188. Delta Global said 

that the departure had been captured on videotape kept by airport officials. 

Thus, Delta Global said, three of its employees watched the video to 

identify the employee who had pushed the airplane from the gate for Flight 

5188. That employee would have been the person responsible for the final 

walk around. 

 According to Delta Global, the three employees identified Mr. 

Ghogomu as the person who had pushed the airplane from the gate. Mr. 

Ghogomu argues that there was never any videotape and that the three 

employees lied. 

 This argument arises in the context of summary-judgment rulings, 

requiring the court to consider whether there was evidence to support Mr. 

Ghogomu’s allegation of an elaborate lie about watching a nonexistent 

videotape. The district court concluded that there was no evidence to 

support Mr. Ghogomu’s allegation, and we agree. 

 The evidence showed that the video was kept by airport officials, not 

Delta Global. Airport officials said that they had routinely deleted videos 

after 30 days and that Mr. Ghogomu did not request the video until almost 

3 months after the incident. By then, the video had been deleted. 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 5 
6 

 Mr. Ghogomu points out that the airport had no record of a request 

from Delta Global to view the video. The absence of a record is relevant if 

one would expect a record of the request. But there was little reason to 

expect a record here because requests for airport videos were usually made 

by telephone. There was no evidence suggesting that a request would 

ordinarily have been reflected in the airport’s records. 

 For these reasons, we reject Mr. Ghogomu’s arguments regarding the 

videotape of Flight 5188’s departure. 

4. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not say 

anything supportive of Mr. Ghogomu’s claims. 

Mr. Ghogomu points out that the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission issued a right-to-sue letter, characterizing the letter as 

evidence of Delta Global’s fault. Mr. Ghogomu has misunderstood the 

EEOC letter. The EEOC actually said that it was unable to conclude that 

Mr. Ghogomu’s information would have established a violation of federal 

law. The letter does not support Mr. Ghogomu’s claims. 

5. The district court correctly rejected Mr. Ghogomu’s claim 

involving nonproduction of documentary evidence. 

 Mr. Ghogomu claims that Delta Global singled him out for drug 

testing after he was identified as the employee responsible for conducting 

the final walk around. But, Mr. Ghogomu contends, Delta Global failed to 

produce duty logs or reports showing drug testing of other crew members 

working on the day of the accident. 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 6 
7 

 According to Mr. Ghogomu, the industry requires duty logs, so their 

nonexistence constitutes evidence of pretext. He does not explain how a 

failure to keep duty logs would serve as evidence of pretext. Nor does he 

present any evidence of an industry standard requiring duty logs. Mr. 

Ghogomu’s allegation is unexplained and unsupported. 

 Mr. Ghogomu also contends that the absence of documents showing 

drug testing or incident reports proves that he was singled out. But Delta 

Global acknowledges that it singled Mr. Ghogomu out. The question is 

why. Delta Global contends that it singled Mr. Ghogomu out for drug 

testing only after identifying him as the employee responsible for the final 

walk around. Mr. Ghogomu’s argument about the absence of documents 

does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. Therefore, the district 

court correctly rejected Mr. Ghogomu’s argument against summary 

judgment. 

6. The district court correctly rejected Mr. Ghogomu’s contention 

that Delta Global had changed its version of events. 

 Mr. Ghogomu contends that Delta Global changed its explanation for 

his firing during the litigation. In one motion, Delta Global said that it had 

fired Mr. Ghogomu because he was responsible for the final walk around 

and he had neglected to secure the fuel panel door. In later filings, Delta 

Global said that it had fired Mr. Ghogomu because he failed to conduct the 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 7 
8 

final walk around. In Mr. Ghogomu’s view, the two statements are 

different and this difference constituted evidence of pretext. We disagree. 

 In our view, the two statements are substantively the same. In both 

statements, Delta Global said that it had fired Mr. Ghogomu because he 

failed to conduct the final walk around. That failure was important because 

it should have led Mr. Ghogomu to see that the fuel panel door was open. 

In these circumstances, we reject Mr. Ghogomu’s characterization of the 

two statements as a change in Delta Global’s version of events. 

7. Mr. Ghogomu lacks evidence that the district court deliberately 

misconstrued facts and claims. 

 According to Mr. Ghogomu, the district court deliberately 

misconstrued facts and claims. We reject this contention. 

 Mr. Ghogomu does not identify the facts supposedly misconstrued 

and identifies only one claim allegedly misconstrued: the unjust 

termination claim. The district court said that this claim had arisen under 

Title VII. This characterization was correct because Mr. Ghogomu had 

relied solely on Title VII on his claims involving the termination. 

8. The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a 

scheduling order. 

Mr. Ghogomu contends that the district court waited too long to issue 

a scheduling order. According to Mr. Ghogomu, the delay gave Delta 

Global too much time for discovery. 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 8 
9 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set a deadline for the issuance 

of scheduling orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2). The district court’s 

scheduling order arguably did not satisfy this deadline. But even if the 

scheduling order was late, it would have remained valid. See 3 James Wm. 

Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 16.12[1][a], at 16-44 (3d ed. 

2016) (“The time limits applicable to the issuance of a scheduling order do 

not imply that an order filed after the deadline is invalid.”). 

Mr. Ghogomu contends that by waiting too long to issue a scheduling 

order, the district court gave the parties too much time for discovery. This 

argument is unconvincing. Even with an earlier scheduling order, the court 

could have given the parties just as much time for discovery. Thus, Mr. 

Ghogomu has not alleged a reason to believe he was harmed by the delay in 

issuing the scheduling order. 

9. Disposition 

 We affirm. 

We also deny the defendants’ motion to strike Mr. Ghogomu’s 

exhibits to his reply brief. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-5112 Document: 01019639261 Date Filed: 06/16/2016 Page: 9